The Social Construction of Enemies: Jews and the Representation of Evil Author(s): David Norman Smith Reviewed work(s):

Source: Sociological Theory, Vol. 14, No. 3 (Nov., 1996), pp. 203-240 Published by: American Sociological Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3045387 . Accessed: 22/04/2012 10:01
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Sociological Theory.

http://www.jstor.org

The Social Construction of Enemies: Jews and the Representation of Evil*

DAVID NORMAN SMITH

University of Kansas
Fiftyyears after the Holocaust, anti-Jewishmythsand sentimentsare gaining momentum in Europe, the Islamic world, the Americas, and even in Japan. Why?Does hate spring eternal? Seeking an answer to this question, I develop a seven-part argument.My aim is to advance what can reasonably be called a "social constructionist" perspective on the kind of antisemitic demonology that is now gaining worldwide currency.My method is to seek clarity by evaluating varying kinds of constructionistclaims. Both the strengths and weaknesses of these claims are illuminatingfor my purposes, as I try to show in connection with writers including Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe,Elisabeth Young-Bruehl, Daniel Goldhagen, and Pierre-AndreTaguieff. My conclusion is that we can best understandantisemitismas an instance of what historian Gavin Langmuircalls "chimeria." Interpretedin the spirit of certain classic texts (by Sartre, Adorno, and Samuel), this notion offers a powerful starting point for further inquiry.To illustrate the promise of this approach,I close with an interpretation of the current,global antisemitic revival as an expression of anti-Jewishchimeria.

Fantasiesof "Jewishconspiracy"have been rife in recent years. Amid a host of traumasthe collapse of the USSR, German reunification,the travails of the former Soviet bloc, recession in the Far East, and the austeritypolicies of the IMF-anti-Jewish mythology has once again emergedfrom the shadow of the Holocaust.Fears and illusions thatmany people thought had been forever discredited have been resurrectedin many places. Once mainly European,antisemitismis now genuinely global-and increasingly angry and delusional, as Brym, Goodman,Miyazawa, Yadlin, and many others have shown.1 Startlingviews are widespread.In Poland, 36% of all survey respondentsagree that "the Jews"are still answerablefor the murderof Christ-a claim echoed by nearly one-thirdof all respondentsin Uzbekistan and a quarterof all respondentsin Austria. In Romania, a powerful mass movement calls for "a bloody struggle against Hungarians,Germans,gypsies, and Jews," while just 38% of Slovakians reject the statementthat the Holocaust was for "justpunishment" Jewish sins. In Belarus, 25% of all survey respondentsfavor exiling
Jews to Siberia.2 All this is happening, meanwhile, in a period when Jews are an almost spectral presence. Outside of the Americas, only Russia and Hungary have non-negligible Jewish populations
* I am grateful for the advice and support of many people, including Bob Antonio, Laura Bennetts, Craig Ernest Manheim, Hal Calhoun,G6ranDahl, Leah Florence, Mark Gottdiener,Marty Harwayne,Scott Kerrihard, Orbach,Leon Rappoport,Alan Sica, and Violet Smith. I would also like to thankBob Brym and David Goodman, for sharing documents with me; Alberto Gasparini,James Woelfl, Dan Breslauer,Carl Strikwerda,Josh Rosenbloom, and Kevin Anderson, for giving me opportunitiesto present my ideas in public forums; and-last but not least-the Research SupportOffice of the University of Kansas. Please address any correspondenceto David N. Smith, Departmentof Sociology, University of Kansas, Lawrence KS 66045. 1 For full data, see the annual Antisemitism WorldReports (1992-1996, hereafter AWR); Fullerton 1995; Mansurov 1993; Mudde 1995; Pelinka 1993; Yadlin 1989; and other sources cited below. 2 See AWR (1996:195), Benz (1993:8), Pelinka (1993:46-47), Ford (1991:xxxxi), Simon (1992:A4), and Butorovaand Butora (1992:94). Sociological Theory 14:3 November 1996 AmericanSociological Association. 1722 N StreetNW Washington, DC 20036

204

SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY

(about 2,000,000 and 80,000 respectively). Slovakia, Romania, and Poland-the sites of the angriest antisemitismoutside the former USSR-are virtually free of Jews. And some of the fiercest antisemitismin the formerUSSR is found either in realms where most native Jews were killed in the Holocaust (e.g., Ukraine)or where few have ever lived (Azerbaijan). All this, Wolfgang Benz says, is "stringent proof of the thesis that antisemitism... is not only possible without Jews, it does in fact exist to [a] great [extent]"(1993:3). With this background,it is perhapsnot surprisingthat much of the reigning anti-Jewish feeling is highly detached from reality. Perhaps the most vivid evidence of this is the growing popularityof the classic demonological belief, most commonly associated with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, that a sinister cabal of rich and powerful Jews rules the world. In Russia, "fifty to sixty publications,some read by millions, spreadthe notion of a Jewish conspiracyto take over the world"(Lerman,1993:28; cf. AWR 1996). And this notion is indeed widespread. In Moscow, 17.8% of the respondents in a recent survey "agreedor were inclined to agree that a global Zionist plot against Russia exists" (Brym and Degtyarev 1993:5; cf. Brym 1996). Perhapseven more remarkably, almost 25% were "undecided"!3 Parallelconcerns are widely voiced elsewhere. Almost 60% of Polish survey respondents agree, for example, that "Jewshold most of the world's finances in their hands";the claim that "Jewshave too much influence in the world"is endorsedby 42% of Azerbaijanis,36% of Germans,and 30% of Americans;28% of Slovaks blame a "Jewishplot"for majorworld problems. Among Czechs, the "Velvet Revolution"is routinely called a Jewish-Masonic plotters"for toppling the former coup. The Romanianfar right indicts "Israeli-Hungarian Stalinist regime, and in Hungary,even the ruling party decries "Jewishhegemony"and the "global financial conspiracy."In Turkey, the new Islamic president has blamed "Jews, freemasonryand the United States"for Turkey'swoes.4 Meanwhile,perhapsreflectingthe influence of recent "Holocaustdenial,"more thanhalf of Belarusianrespondentsreportskepticism about "thefull reality"of the Holocaust, while 15% of Germanssay the Holocaust has been exaggerated(and 40% of Austrianchildren implicate the Jews themselves in the Holocaust).5 Finally, in a crowning absurdity,a powerful wave of demonological Jewish-conspiracy theory has swept over Japan-though almost no Jews have ever lived in Japan. Literally hundredsof books insist, as one title proclaims, that Money Rules the Worldand the Jews Rule Money.More than 100 such books appearedin 1990 alone, and by 1993, Uno Masami had sold more than a million copies of his luridbestseller,If YouUnderstandthe Jews, You Understandthe World:Scenariofor the UltimateEconomic War(Goodmanand Miyazawa 1995; Golub 1992). Nor are these views simply idle prejudices.Since 1989, acts of anti-Jewishviolence have become increasinglycommon in the United States, in every partof Scandinaviaand Europe, and in remoterrealms such as Brazil and Australia.And many seemingly disparateterrorist acts of the recent past-from Aum Shinrikyo'spoison attackon the Tokyo subways to the Oklahoma City and World Trade Center bombings-seem to have been spurredby the shared conviction that these deadly assaults were, in fact, valorous acts of war against "Jewishconspirators" the so-called "ZionistOccupationGovernment" or (ZOG).6
3 In other words, "over forty percentof Moscow's adultpopulationare open to perhapsthe greatestanti-Semitic canardof all time" (Brym and Degtyarev 1993:6). 4 See Krzeminski (1993:129); cf. Cala (1993), Benz (1993:8), Hertzberg (1993:53), Hockenos (1993:112f., 283-284), and AWR (1996:249, 1994:135). 5 Russian respondents,when asked to name famous historical Jews, spontaneouslychoose "Adolf Hitler"as their sixth most common selection (Gudkov and Levinson 1992:18). 6 My thanks to David G. Goodman for sharing a paper (1996, in press) on the antisemitismthat led Aum's leaders to imagine that, in attackingthe Tokyo subways, they were strikingthe first blow in a millennial conflict and enemies. (And cf. Kaplanand Marshall,1996:222f.) It is well-known, againstJudeo-Japanese Judeo-American

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONOF ENEMIES

205

Antisemitism, in short, seems to have a radioactivehalf-life of millennia. Even in our "postmoder" world, a kind of mythology that would have seemed atavistic only a few years ago is now routine once again. Why? Does hate spring eternal? JUDEOPHOBIAIN QUESTION of Few sociologists would deny that the representation the Jew as a demonic enemy is, in some sense, an instanceof "socially constructed" identity.The contraryview-the antisemitic claim that the demonic Jew is in fact real-is now defended by just a few intellectuals, such as the Russian writer AleksandrDugin and the mathematician Igor Shafarevich.And even the most richly embroideredantisemiticperspectivestoday-such as Dugin's "conspitheoryof "Russophobia"-seldom lay serious claim to the mantle ratology"or Shafarevich's of science. Not since the Third Reich has it been common for sociologists to join forces with antisemites, and not since Max Scheler has antisemitism had a major sociological apologist.7 Scheler, it will be recalled, defended Nietzsche's claim that Jews bear fatal guilt for the of "transvaluation values" that substituted popularly constructed norms (egalitarianism, pacifism) for an originally-givenspiritualhierarchy([1912] 1961:145; cf. Nietzsche [1887] 1966:469ff.).8In effect, Scheler'sclaim is thatthe very notion of socially constructedvalues expresses the subversivehubris of Jewish humanism.Values and identities are objectively given, he writes; Germansand Jews are hence unalterablyantithetical,howevermuch Jews may wish to deny this (1917, passim). identities is widely applauded, Now, contra Scheler, the theme of "socially constructed" in myriadidioms. But thereis still very little agreementaboutthe implicationsof this notion constructions? for "the Jews" of antisemiticfolklore. Are these Jews pure phantasmagoric Or are they, perhaps,distortedbut still recognizable reflections of real Jews? This is not, as we will see, a strictly academic question. Indeed, the practicaldifference movebetween these two claims is of critical significance. Antisemitic and antidemocratic ments are both growing swiftly, and it seems likely that there may be an elective affinity between them. To decipher and oppose these twin dangers, social theorists will have to penetratetheir interconnections.And this, in turn, requiresa subtle investigationof each. If antisemitismis partly a reaction to the conduct or characterof living Jews, then Jews This is, in fact, exactly what most may be able to reformantisemitesby self-transformation. currentsof Jewryhave believed in this century.Under variousbanners(assimilationismand Zionism, Reform and Orthodoxy,liberalism and socialism), Jews have claimed the power to dispel antisemitism by self-reform. Few have gone as far as to imply, with Bernard Lazare, that only self-reformis needed.9Nor is it common to say, like the ultra-Orthodox rabbinate,that "thosewho seek the sources of antisemitismin externalcircumstances,such as the complicated social and political conditions of the day, [are] self-deceived"(cited by
meanwhile,thatmany Americanultra-rightists (from the alleged OklahomaCity bombersto the MontanaFreemen) affirm similar views; for relevant data see Stem (1996), Dees (1996), Ezekial (1995), J. Kaplan (1995) and the indispensablesocial and intellectual backgrounddata in Aho (1994), Barkun(1994) and Boyer (1992). And see Sprinzak(1995:25f.) for data on the recent influence of ZOG convictions among Europeanneo-Nazis. 7 See Smith (1994). 8 On the natureof this hierarchy,of course, Scheler and Nietzsche parted company. Scheler's ideal (until the murky,final phase of his development)was Catholicism-a fact that led ErnstTroeltschto dub him "theCatholic norms in all their guises. Nietzsche." Nietzsche, by contrast,was an enemy of "Judo-Christian" 9 Self-reformis vital, Lazarefelt ([1894] 1903:8), since "thegeneralcauses of antisemitismhave always resided in Israelitself, and not in those who antagonizedit."Ironically,Lazarepersonallywas one of the bravestopponents of French antisemitism during the Dreyfus Affair. This did not, however, prevent him from assigning Jews comprehensiveblame even for their own murders:'The Jews want to live apart-a line is drawn against them. They detest the spirit of the nations amidst whom they live-the nations chase them. They burn the [Quranand the New Testament]-their Talmudis burnedand they themselves are burnedwith it" ([1894] 1903:19).

206

SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY

Ragins 1980:98-9). But if Jews can change antisemites by changing themselves, then antisemitismis comparativelyeasy to understand-and mend. Answers are availablewithout complex sociological analysis. And Jews can cure this illness unaided, without asking too much of antisemites. This, in brief, is the consensus that crystallized in Jewish circles aroundthe turn of the century.Opinion leaders in each of the principal camps agreed that "at least some of the responsibilityfor antisemitismwas lodged in the natureof Jewish life itself, and that there were real, objective characteristics Jewry that contributedto the causes of antisemitism in and helped sustain it" (Ragins 1980:66). The only real dispute was over the exact nature of the problematictraits, and how they should be handled. A leading liberal, who agreed that antisemitismdoes indeed have "factualfoundationsin the Jewish community," sounded a common note when he objected to the "disquietude" the Jews, their "limitless egoism of and sensuality,"their "loud, rash nature"(Philippson, cited in Ragins 1980:71). The rich tendedto blame poor Jews for this "disquietude" (which often inspiredpolitical radicalism). Socialist Jews, in turn,often pointed fingers of reproof at wealthy Jews (for their "limitless egoism").0l And western Jews, rich and poor alike, tended to blame antisemitism on the strangeways of Jewish emigrantsfrom Galicia, which, they felt, repelled non-Jews (Aschheim 1982; Wertheimer1987). WalterRathenauexpressed this opinion with classical purity when he spoke bitingly of easternJews as this "Asiatic horde,"this "alien human stock in the midst of Germanlife," whose very nature,"effervescentand gaudily decorated,"is an affrontto culturedsensibilities ([1897] 1981:89). For assimilationists,meanwhile, any Jew who failed to abide by Gentile norms was a kind of culturalprovocateur. CentralRaphaelL6wenfeld, a founderof the German-Jewish verein, insisted that "one of the main causes of antisemitism"was the failure of Orthodox The Orthodox,in Jewry to accept Reform Judaismand "becomecompletely Germanized." turn, blamed antisemitism on their "covenant-betraying brethren"-those, like L6wenfeld and TheodoreReinach, whose quest to promote assimilationto Frenchor Germancustoms provoked antisemiticfears of masked Jewish power and intrigue (Ragins 1980:50, 98; cf. Marrus 1971:94)."1 Theodor Herzl, the founder of Zionism, was originally an assimilationist who later despairedof findingacceptancefor Jews in Europe.Yet even this despair,it shouldbe noted, did not impair Herzl's optimism about the power of the Jews to vanquish antisemitism. 'The Jews will leave as honored friends,"Herzl insisted, and "anti-Semitism[will] stop at once and forever"([1896] 1943:28, 100). The emergingconsensus, in short,was that Jews provoke Gentiles, and that antisemitism is the logical result. Hence, to undo antisemitism,Jews must either emigrate or undertake what Rathenau ([1897] 1981:91) called an endeavor "without historical precedent: the conscious self-educationof a race to conform to foreign demands." This, plainly, was a kind of syllogism, resting on an axiomatic foundation.As such, it was unlikely to inspire curiosity or research. It is not surprising,then, that Jews in this period seldom saw antisemitism as a puzzle requiring sociological investigation. It does seem odd, however,that sociologists were equally blase. As Carl Mayer wrote, "sociology seems to encounterfew [phenomena]so unique and phantastic[as demonological antisemi10 See Wistrich (1982, passim). And even Otto Bauer, the renowned Austro-Marxisttheorist of nationality, contendedthat the antipathythat many workersfeel for Jews "does not stem from political antisemitism,but from the naive instinctivereaction against the strangemannersof the non-assimilatedJews." In particular, Bauer said, Jews annoyed Gentile workers by "the inflection of their language, their gestures, their apparel, their customs" (cited in Wistrich 1982:339). 1 For the Orthodox,meanwhile, antisemitismwas a weapon of God's avenging will, which would scourge the faithlessfor breakingthe covenant.Today,for many of the ultra-Orthodox Israel,the Holocaustis still interpreted in in this way.

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF ENEMIES

207

tism, yet thus far] sociologists have abstained from making it a serious object of investigation" (1942:316). Not until the eve of the Second World War did the tide begin to turn. As Nazi and east European antisemitism assumed ever more grotesque forms, it became increasingly evident that neither assimilation nor Zionist emigration was, in fact, an answer to the problem. Judeophobia was increasingly violent and hallucinatory. Nothing the Jews did, or failed to do, made any difference. What strange fury is this, many wondered? Why do fascists, in particular, so often rage against Jews? And why are Jews so regularly depicted as sinister, world-conquering demons, the very soul of evil? For a moment after the war, the prospect of a vital multidisciplinary inquiry into these questions seemed within reach, as Adorno, Fenichel, Sartre, and a host of others contributed valuable studies.12 But the spirit of the 1940s soon faded. After the mid-1950s the topic of genocidal hate seemed to lose its luster for social theorists. Rich historiography continued to appear, but with rare exceptions (e.g., the work of Saul Friedlander [1971], Colette Guillaumin [1972], Joseph Gabel [1975], Shulamit Volkov [1978], and Alphons Silbermann [1981]), the wider currents of theoretical analysis branched into other channels.13 As a result, antisemitism "received little sustained attention or any continuing theoretical discussion among social scientists" for a generation (Fein 1987b:67). Most of the researchers in this period (e.g. Selznick and Steinberg [1969], Quinley and Glock [1979]) were empiricists studying variations in routine bias. "Antisemitism" was construed as dislike or disapproval of Jews, and little else. And in fact this remains the conventional social-scientific notion of antisemitism. Only recently has a renewed interest begun to stir in anti-Jewish demonology. Most of the writers who have delved into this theme grasp, to varying degrees, that demonology is not simply conventional prejudice, and many are now beginning to avow "constructionist" views. In a profusion of idioms, in many fields, and with uneven self-consciousness, critics are saying that ethnic and "racial"identities are social rather than natural facts, "constructed" by cultural practices and representations. This is the premise shared, for example, by critics of "culturally constructed binary oppositions" (Culler), "chimeria" (Langmuir) "social racism" (Bock), "moral panic" (Morin), "demonology" (Poliakov), "orecticism" (YoungBruehl), "mixophobia" (Taguieff), and "racisation" (Guillaumin).'4 And there are many related perspectives put forward by such notable figures as Moishe Postone, Slavoj Zizek, Nonna Mayer, and Yves Chevalier.15 My objective, in what follows, is to trace a path through the labyrinth of classical and contemporary perspectives on antisemitism, seeking to clarify the implications of the idea that Jews are "socially constructed enemies." After a brief glance into the celebrated recent inquiry by Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe, I look critically at Gavin Langmuir's fruitful notion of "chimeria." This leads to an account of classic texts by Samuel, Sartre, and others.16 Certain difficulties in these texts are clarified by a glance at Sartre's critics. And several obstacles to the sociological application of constructionist tenets are explored via recent works by Goldhagen, Young-Bruehl, Taguieff, and Wieviorka.
12 Other stellar names of this period include psychologists Marie Jahoda,Bruno Bettelheim, RudolphLoewenstein, Daniel Levinson, and ErnstSimmel, and historiansEva Reichmann,Aurel Kolnai,Paul Massing, and Joshua Trachtenberg. 13 Outstandingrecent historiansof antisemitisminclude Leon Poliakov, Eleonore Sterling, RosemaryRuether, Hans Rosenberg, Norman Cohn, Shulamit Volkov, Peter Pulzer, George Mosse, Michael Marrus,Jacob Toury, Jacob Katz, and ReinhardRiirup.And I particularly wish to call attentionto the brilliantwork of StephenWilson (1982). 14 "Chimeria" is pronounced"ky-meria" (with the hard Greek "ch,"as in charisma). 15 See also the recent work of Alain Finkielkraut ([1980] 1994), ChristianDelacampagne(1990), Joseph Gabel (1987), and Alex Demirovic (1992), among others. 16 This of readingof antisemitismwas prefiguredin the Volkerspsychologie Lazarusand Steinthal.The earliest critiques of Judeophobia,from Pinsker and Ahad Ha'am to Peretz Bernstein, all clearly bear the marks of what influence. (See Smith 1997, in press). Dilthey once called "Lazarista"

208

THEORY SOCIOLOGICAL

My thesis, briefly, is that Sartreet al. formulateda perspective of lasting merit which can be distilled into seven basic points (and severalcorollaries).This perspectiveis complex in detail but comparativelysimple in principle. I argue that the antisemite'smalign "Jew" is a figment of the social imagination.This is most clearly evident in the myth of the world
Jewish conspiracy, which, as Cohn observes, is "a modem adaptation of . . . ancient

demonological tradition"([1966] 1981:22). In the most widespreadcurrentversion of this demonology, Jews figure as evil personified, the engine of a Zionist-ZOG plot to enslave the planet (Hockenos 1993; Wilson 1982; Postone 1986, 1980). And this, in turn, is a and manifest in hallucinatory specifically Manichaeanmyth, moored in authoritarianism visions. We begin with Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe.

A CULTURALLY CONSTRUCTEDPOLARITY According to Jacques Derrida,deconstructionis a "necessarycondition for identifying and risk"(1989:155).17And JonathanCuller sees special hope for the combatingthe totalitarian deconstructionof Nazi antisemitism:"Never,"he stresses, "has there been so clear a case of the deadly functioning of a culturally constructed binary opposition. Deconstruction seeks to undo oppositions that, in the name of unity, purity, order, and hierarchy,try to eliminate difference"(1989:783). Perhapsthe most acclaimedrecent accountof antisemitismcomes from Philippe LacoueLabarthe,who is not a minor figure in the deconstructionistpantheon. As Derridanotes, many of the main deconstructive categories were forged in an effort to "emancipate" was pivotal to that effort. "[In] the past 25 Heidegger from Sartre-and Lacoue-Labarthe methods of readingHeidegger ... that were not influencedby either Merleau-Ponty years,
or Sartre . . . were developed by Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe, by Jean-Luc Nancy, and also

by myself" (Derrida1990:146).18The very notion of "deconstruction" sprangfrom this new of Heidegger:"Ifthis ancientFrenchword has any meaningtoday,"Nancy remarks, reading "it is almost exclusively within the context of Derrida'sthought.... For Derrida,this word has served to retrieve and re-elaborate Heidegger's notion of Destruktion (Nancy and has 1990:102).19Like Derrida,Lacoue-Labarthe pursuedthis "delimitation deconstruction" (Destruktion,Zerstorung,Abbau) of philosophy" (1990:10). It is no accident, then, that Lacoue-Labarthe's Fiction du politique originatedas an interventioninto the debate La over Heidegger'sNazi past.20Nor is it coincidental that this book has been acclaimed by so many of Heidegger's admirers,including, e.g., Maurice Blanchot ([1987] 1989:475f.).
17 Comparethe similar views of Paul de Man (1986:11) and J. Hillis Miller (1989:339). 18 Lacoue-Labarthe's in the anti-Sartrean role reading of Heidegger is also stressed by Lyotard,who writes, in his book on Heidegger, Lacoue-Labarthe, and "thejews," that the rubric of deconstructionencodes that "which in 'philosophers' France(and elsewhere, to be sure) have understoodas what is tryingto write itself in Heidegger's texts. It is thus thatexistentialism,phenomenology,and Marxismhave given way to existential-ontological thought, which is 'nomadic'because without place, deconstructivebecause paradoxical"(1990:5). In the early 1980s, as co-director (with Nancy) of the Centre de recherches philosophiques sur la politique, Lacoue-Labarthe played an importantrole in mediating between the various currentsin French intellectual life. Derrida,Lyotard,Ranciere,Lefort, and Ferry were among the prominentparticipantsin a series of colloquia led and by Lacoue-Labarthe Nancy, who edited the proceedings in three volumes (1985, 1983, 1981). 19 Gasche suspects that Heidegger may have borrowed the idea of Destruktionfrom Husserl, whose concept "Abbau" phrase"gedankliche and Destruktion" anticipatedHeideggersubstantivelyas well as formally(1986:111). 20 This debate began with Farias ([1987] 1989) and continues apace. Heidegger was a dues-payingmember of the Nazi Partyfrom 1933 to 1945 and played an active role in the effort to Nazify the GermanUniversityLeague in 1933-1934 while serving as "Rector-Fiihrer" the University of Freiburg.For details, see Wolin (1990) and of and Megill (1985); and cf. Lacoue-Labarthe Nancy ([1980] 1991).

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONOF ENEMIES

209

(1989:70), and Jean-Francois Lyotarddevoted CynthiaChase calls the book "indispensable" views on Heidegger and the Jews (1990). a study of his own to Lacoue-Labarthe's is Lacoue-Labarthe opposed, above all, to the claim that Heidegger'sphilosophy shows an affinity for fascism (1990:105). Against Adorno and others who make this claim, Lacoue-Labartheinsists that Heidegger's Destruktion of ideology is antithetical to fascism-and that Germanfascism and Judeophobiasprang,rather,from the very ideologies that Heidegger sought to destroy.What were these ideologies? Applying a phraseborrowed from Walter Benjamin, Lacoue-Labarthesays that "in its essence, the programme of of National Socialism" consisted of an "aestheticization politics" (1990:61). this proposition in the work of the filmmakerSyberberg,for Lacoue-Labarthe grounds whom the Third Reich is an example of the "total artworkof a pervertedWest." "Hitler understoodthe significance of film," Syberbergsays. "Wemight even wonder whetherhe did not merely organize [the] Nuremberg [rallies] for [filmmaker]Leni Riefenstahl, . . . and, . . . whether the whole of the Second World War was not indeed conducted as a big budget war film, solely put on so it could be projected as newsreel each evening in his bunker"(cited in Lacoue-Labarthe 1990:63). This view is "profound," Lacoue-Labarthe says. "Racism-and antisemitismin particular-is primarily,fundamentally,an aestheticism"(1990:64, 69). If this is accurate,then psychodynamicor social in origin, but aesthetic. rage against Jews is not "fundamentally" The implication of this claim is concisely stated by Jean-JosephGoux, who sympathizes with Lacoue-Labarthe: 'The fatal inclinationof such an aesthetic fiction of the political ... is towardsthe eliminationof all that seems misshapen, strange,unhealthy,and heterogeneof ous to the beautifulorganic totality of the community-thus the extermination the Jews" (1989:19). This is remarkable.The Jews were killed, by this logic, because they were not among "the beautiful people" of Aryan myth. In the eyes of their assassins they were uncanny, lacking in the Nordic graces. "In his essence, the 'Jew' is a caricature,ugliness itself," Lacoue-Labarthe explains (1990:69). in For Lacoue-Labarthe, other words, the infinite complexities of National Socialism can be reducedto little more than a cinematic idee fixe, while genocidal hatredis construedas a kind of aesthetic reflex. Everything unique about the historical experience of Nazi to antisemitismis left in the shade. Why were the Jews so uniquely abhorrent Hitler?Why did the Nazis choose genocide rather than some lesser measure? Why were resources divertedfrom the Russian front to the death camps? And why did Judeophobiaburstinto flame at this moment, in this place? would have to turn to history.Insteadhe To solve riddles of this kind, Lacoue-Labarthe embracesmetaphysics. "Inthe Auschwitz apocalypse, it was nothing less than the West, in its essence, that revealed itself. ... God in fact died at Auschwitz-the God of the convicWest."The rationalefor this claim is evidently Lacoue-Labarthe's Judaeo-Christian tion that Westernart gives rise to an inherentlymurderoustechnology. "Auschwitzis, very precisely . . . the useless residue (le dechet) of the Westernidea of art, that is to say, of disavows techne"(Lacoue-Labarthe 1990:35, 37, 46). Pressed by critics, Lacoue-Labarthe social-scientific intent. Affirming "thefact [that]nationalaestheticism . . . enteredin a any decisive way into the Hitlerian variant of antisemitism"is not the same, he says, as "believing that this 'explains' the mass phenomenon of antisemitism."On the contrary, "thereis no question here of a cause. This is why I speak, for want of a better term, in terms of essences" (1990:49). Apparently,the aesthetic "essence" of Western culture is so warped that genocide is woven into its very fabric. "Weknew,"Lacoue-Labarthe proclaims,"thatWesternman was

210

THEORY SOCIOLOGICAL

a killer... We even knew-or could guess-that the West had always hated something in the Jew" (1990:49). Paradoxically,then, to explain why "the Jew" seems "essentially"vile to antisemites, murderous.The very same metaphysiLacoue-Labarthe says that "theWest"is "essentially" now applies cal, essentialist category that the Nazis applied to the Jews, Lacoue-Labarthe to Nazism-and evidently, to Westerndemocratsand antifascistsas well. Few sociologists are likely to agree that the differentiaspecifica of Weimardemocracy, hyperinflation,depression, bigotry, and class conflict can be safely ignored in favor of a transhistoricalconception of aesthetic causality.21At one point, even Martin Heidegger ironized about efforts to equate Nazism with the Western heritage. "One does not at all serve the knowledge and appraisalof the historical uniqueness of National Socialism," he said in a lecture on Holderlin ([1942] 1984:106), "if one now interpretsthe Hellenic realm (Griechentum)such that one could suppose that the Greeks have alreadyall been 'National Socialists."22Derrida'sfriend, the critic Paul de Man, made a similar point: "One would think,"he wrote, "that,after some of the experiences of this century,the complexity of the relationshipbetween thoughtand action would be betterunderstood.... The responsibility [for Nazism] rests not with the tradition but with the manner in which it was used or neglected, and this is primarilya sociological problem"([1966] 1989:163). De Man may be less critical of Kant and Fichte than the historical record warrants,but he is entirely right about the pressing need for sociological insight. For this we must turn to writers who analyze antisemitism without recourse to metaphysical absolutes. Among recent writers, the historian Gavin Langmuirhas shown a particularlykeen sensitivity to the social and historical nature of antisemitic myth, which he classifies as a form of chimeria. EVIL PERSONIFIED 'n 1898, at the height of the Dreyfus Affair, the royalist leader Lur-Saluces advised his colleagues that they could obtain "everyadvantageby divertingto our profit this gigantic movementwhich grows largerevery day."A few years earlier,he added, this advice would have been less credible. Aristocrats then "found antisemitism to be frightening. If you pillage the Jews, they said, we will end up being pillaged as well." But the situation had changed:'Today such fears no longer exist. There is a sense that it is no longer a question of money and that [religious] beliefs are not at issue. Everyone has understoodthat we are struggling against a race and defending ourselves against its cosmopolitan power" (see Irvine 1989:173). A few years earlier, BernardLazare had concluded, on similar grounds, that race had now eclipsed religion as a spurto anti-Jewishfeeling. ([1894] 1903). An alternativeschema derives from Sartreand others for whom demonology differs decisively from simple bias. Antipathies rooted in "race" or creed may yield a full-blown demonology in certain situations,but this is not always the case. And demonology,not simple bias, is what is most vitally in question when we deal with anti-Jewishmyth.
21 On Foucauldiangrounds, the late social historian Detlev Peukert argued that there is something innately deadly about the "disciplines"of twentieth-centuryscience; for a critique of Peukert, see Smith (1995b). For a somewhat analogous argumentby a sociologist, see Zygmunt Bauman (1991:31f.). For Bauman, however, "the real point at issue is not; 'What can we, the sociologists, say about the Holocaust?',but, rather,'What has the Holocaust to say aboutus, the sociologists, and our practice?"' (1991:5). This emphasis sharplylimits the interest of Bauman'sanalysis for my purposes. 22 I have excellent book slightly alteredthe translationof this passage, which I found in Michael Zimmerman's on Heidegger (1990:41). Zimmermanrenders"Griechentum" "Greekhumanity." as

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONOF ENEMIES

211

Leon Poliakov, the dean of today'shistoriansof antisemitism,finds the clearest explanation of this point in the writings of Gavin Langumuir,for whom "assertionsrealistes"and "assertions chimeriques"are ideal-typically opposed (1993:83). Langmuir'scategory of chimeria does, in my opinion, offer a valid point of entry for the analysis of anti-Jewish demonology. Although there are problems with some of his key formulations,Langmuir's core position is rich and insightful. "I am a historian," The startingpoint for his analysis Langmuirsays, "nota philosopher." is hence a "practicalhistoriographicproblem"(1990a:349-350). Why, to start, did Hitler wish to annihilateJews? And what cluster of Germanhopes and sentimentsenabled him to realize this wish? The innovative feature of Langmuir'sresponse to these questions is that he posits an impassable divide between chimeria and reality-based bias. Impressed by the fact that antisemitism has flourished even in realms and periods without Jews-such as Shakespeare'sEngland, three centuries after the Jews had been expelled-Langmuir argues that at least two major forms of prejudice fall under the rubric of "antisemitism." Everyday anti-Jewish bias springing from direct contact is routine, akin to English anti-French statement.But there is also the more radical belief that "the Jews" form a surrealgroup with demonological traits. To define this sort of bias ("to make a distinction which is not recognized in the [ordinary]social scientists'conception of 'ethnicprejudice'.. ."), Langmuir introducesthe term "chimeria," which he derives from classical mythology: the ancientuse of [thetermlchimerato referto a fabulousmonster the emphasizes central of characteristic the phenomenon.... In contrastto [routinebias], chimericassertions monsterswhich, althoughdressedsyntacpresentfantasies,figmentsof the imagination, in the clothes of real humans,have neverbeen seen and areprojections mental of tically
processes unconnected with the real people of the outgroup. Chimeric assertions have no

"kernelof truth."This is the contrastwhich distinguishesthe hostility that produced Auschwitzfrom thatmanifestedagainstJews in ancientAlexandria. (1987:109-110)23 This is a crucial distinction. Langmuirshows its power and flexibility by applying it to a series of historical examples, largely drawn from research on medieval Europe (see Langmuir 1990b, 1984, 1980, 1977, 1976, 1975, 1972). He maintains, briefly, that the adversos Judceustraditionin the first millenniumof Christianitywas mainly an expression of real religious antagonisms,albeit in distorted,often overzealous forms. The aim of this traditionwas twofold: to explain the baffling refusal of the Chosen People to acknowledge Christ, and to convert them. Only later did antisemitismproper arise. "If antisemitismis defined as chimericalbeliefs or fantasies about 'Jews,' as irrationalbeliefs that attributeto all those symbolized as 'Jews' menacing characteristics conduct that no Jews have been or observed to possess or engage in, then antisemitismfirst appearedin medieval Europe in the twelfth century"(Langmuir1990a:297). The first wave of anti-Jewishfantasy appearedat the time of the Crusades."Wecan pin the origin of the first such fantasy down to a single individual.In 1144, the body of a child was found near Norwich, England. Nothing about the boy was religiously significantsave that someone had killed him at Eastertide"(Langmuir1990a:298). Thomas of Monmouth, a monk who arrivedon the scene four years later, spreadthe rumorthat Jews had crucified this boy, and that ritual murdersof this kind took place yearly.
Volk" BrunoBauerin "Die Juden-Frage" Interestinglyenough, the Jews were describedas a "chimcerisches by ([1843] 1978:149).
23

212

SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY

This was the first of many lurid anti-Jewish rumors to win an audience in late medieval Europe.24 The English and continental public, disconcerted by religious and economic upheavals, accused the Jews of plotting to afflict them with a host of maladies and misfortunes. Jews were blamed, for example, for the Black Death of 1347-1350, although they suffered like everyone else. "It would be hard to find a clearer example of irrational scapegoating; and the fact that the people known as flagellants were particularly active in inciting attacks on Jews reveals something about the mental processes at work" (Langmuir 1990a:301-302). The Inquisition, expulsions, and other persecutions ensued. The twentieth-century relevance of Langmuir's idea of chimeric prejudice is indicated by the stubborn persistence of antisemitism in many places where Jews have been eliminated or have never lived. It is hence no surprise that Werner Bergmann, Helen Fein, and others who probe this persisting prejudice find merit in Langmuir's deft and imaginative handling of the idea of chimeria. Nor is it surprising that others (Ostow [1996], Rubin [1990], Chalk and Jonassohn [1990] and Gerber [1986]) speak in similar terms.25 This is not to say, however, that Langmuir offers a fully clear or coherent theoretical perspective. On the contrary, his analysis is significantly flawed in several ways. The main problem is that, in lieu of a theory, Langmuir offers a typology. There is nothing wrong, obviously, with the effort to classify anti-Jewish claims. Saying that antisemitic myth is a form of "chimeria" adds a degree of clarity to our thinking on this subject, without in any way relativizing this unique bias.26 It is also plainly important to clarify why specific biases rise and fall. Why does bias vary across cultures? What dynamics of class, worldview, and character structure are effective in different contexts? Langmuir notes the salience of these questions, but he does not address them cogently. Rather than offering a sociological explanation for Nazi chimeria, for example, he retreats to an eccentric reductionism. The "origin of chimeria," Langmuir concludes, "is to be sought primarily in individual development" (1987:114). It is less a social fact, a collective force, than a feature of personal faith. The weakness of this claim becomes palpable when Langmuir seeks to explain why German hatred for Jews became not only chimerical but genocidal. 'The heritage of Judaism and Christianity ensured that the symbol 'Jews' and the chimerical fantasies associated with it would be salient in the religiosity of those attracted to the Aryan myth," he observes (1990a:345). "But the reality of Jews contradicted Nazi beliefs far more obviously than Christian beliefs." It was, in fact, Hitler's inability to face contradictory "facts" that led to the Final Solution, Langmuir concludes: Hitler could not content himself with degrading and marginalizing the Jews, as Christians had for centuries to provide proof of their beliefs. At some level, he was aware that the very existence of Jews as Jews would always be a direct empirical invalidation of his beliefs about "Jews"-and therefore of the Nazis' belief in their own superiority as
24 R.I. Moore, who extends Langmuir'saccount,points out that in 1171 the Count of Blois orderedthe hanging of 31 Jews as punishmentfor a ritual murder,"even though no body had been found or boy reportedmissing." And as early as 1190, Richardof Devizes claimed that the alleged murderof a Christianboy at Passover was the work of a far-flungJewish conspiracy(Moore 1987:37f., 119f.; and cf. R. Po-chia Hsia [1988] and JeremyCohen [1982]). 25 Langmuirhas been uniquelyinfluentialamong recent studentsof antisemitism.Sociologists WernerBergmann (1988), Yves Chevalier (1988), and Helen Fein (1987a) all avow this influence, and, like historian Poliakov Fein remarks(1987a:3), "to observe how much [we] (1993:83), endorse the notion of chimeria. "It is arresting," agree with each other despite differentmethods."Chevalier'ssystem-theoreticalmodel, however, gives too much weight to opinion-formingelites, while underspecifyingthe dynamics of public opinion (1988:135-137, 148). 26 Placing antisemitic myth under a wider rubric might, at first, seem to deprive it of specificity, but further reflection makes it plain that this is not so. Witchcraftaccusations, for example, are often just as chimerical as anti-Jewishconspiracy theories, but no one is likely to confuse the two phenomena simply because both can be See reasonablydefined as instances of "chimeria." below for furthersubstantivediscussion of this point.

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONOF ENEMIES

213

The contradiction was so blatantthat the only way Hitler could protecthis "Aryans." the Aryanreligionwas to suppress knowledgeof the humanrealityof thoselabeled'Jews' them. (1990a:345-346) by exterminating In other words, the Holocaust was the violent expression of a reaction to cognitive dissonance. I find this unsubtle. It is tantamount,in effect, to saying that the Holocaust occurredbecause avowed irrationalistswere unable to repress fears of rationaldisconfirmation. Langmuir even raises this claim to the status of a law-like formula: "the more concrete and specific the basic beliefs and this-worldly predictions of a physiocentric religion [i.e., a creed resting on allegations of physical traits], the more likely it is that its adherentswill become aware at some level that what they can directly observe clashes with what their religion asserts"(1990a:345). The problemwith this hypothesisis that,on the contrary, hallmarkof chimericfantasy the is precisely that it is immune to ordinarycriteria of proof and testing. Nazi doctrine had always been rife with absurdities,and yet Nazi propagandistsseldom if ever disavowed a claim. Indeed, Hitler and Goebbels often gloried in their contradictions.From Mein Kampf to the bunker,it was routine for the Nazis to say that Jews are simultaneouslycapitalist and communist, powerful and puny, and so on. Else Frenkel-Brunswikand many others have shown that contradictionsof this type are intrinsic to antisemitic demonology. Far from being latent dangers for secretly rational worldviews, self-contradictionsare part of the very fiber of chimeria.In fact, as we will see, they form a major part of its appeal. Durkheimobserved,"is not uprootedby dialecticproof;it must alreadybe deeply "Faith," shakenby othercauses to be unableto withstandthe shock of argument" ([1897] 1952:169). Nor is it clear that Nazi faith was ever genuinely shaken. Indeed, contraryto Langmuir, chimerical faith tends to lead directly to genocide. The accusations levelled against Jews are believed-and it is precisely because they are passionatelyand violently embracedthat Jews are massacred.Langmuirdeserves great credit for revealing the power of chimeriain medieval history,but he is wrong to think that the Nazis pursuedthe Final Solution because their anti-Jewish fantasies "so conflicted with the reality of Jews that the Nazis' faith in themselves could be defended only by destroyingwhomeverthey thoughtof as a 'Jew'.. ." (Langmuir1990a:368). On the contrary,the evidence suggests that the Nazis perpetrated Judeocidebecause they were deeply attached to their chimeric fallacy, not because they felt angst about its plausibility. The Holocaust occurred not because the Nazis doubted their cruel fantasies, but because they devoutly believed them.

FROM CHIMERIATO GENOCIDE It is ironic that Langmuirshould view the Holocaust as an expression of residualrationalof ism, since no one has depicted the collective misrepresentation the Jews with greater clarity. In this he resembles the assimilationists of an earlier era, who imagined that antisemitic extremists, confronted with dissonant facts, would change their ways. "Antisemitism is an enemy of thought,"leading GermanJews wrote in 1932. "But ... thought The is also a danger to antisemitism."27 difference is that Langmuirdoes not believe that when antisemites are exposed to the truththey cease to fear and hate; he believes, rather, that cognitive contradictionsenrage them. The assimilationists assume that the spark of rationalityin the antisemite can be fanned into a flame; Langmuirtakes the symmetrical
27 This statement,in a Central-Verein publication, appearedshortly before Hitler came to power (March 11, 1932); for details, see Peter Baldwin 1982:92 and passim).

214

SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY

but opposed stance that antisemites wish to smother their own latent rationality, in company with the Jews (who indeed seem to embody rationality). On balance Langmuir's virtues are twofold. On the one hand, he clearly divides chimeria from reality-based bias; and second, he grasps that belief alone is not enough to inspire genocide-there must be a mix of myth and hate, of chimeria and hysteria. Yet the enigma remains: Why did rage against Jews rise to genocidal levels in this century? And what forces converged to turn anti-Jewish demonology into violent pathology in Germany in particular? For further insight into these questions I will turn to the classical works of the generation which witnessed the Holocaust. In these works, many ideas akin to Langmuir's notion of chimeria were put forward with great psychological as well as historical acuity. The Manichaean Vision Adoro, Frenkel-Brunswik, and the other authors of The Authoritarian Personality (1950:971) were pleased to observe a "marked similarity between the syndrome which we have labeled the authoritarian personality and 'the portrait of the anti-semite' by Jean-Paul Sartre. Sartre's brilliant paper," they wrote, "became available to us after all our data had been collected and analyzed. That his phenomenological 'portrait' should resemble so closely, both in general structure and in numerous details, the syndrome which slowly emerged from our empirical observations and quantitative analysis, seems to us remarkable."28 In his preface to the same work, Max Horkheimer applauded the even wider convergence he saw in "the remarkable psychological profiles of the prejudiced individual projected by Sigmund Freud, Maurice Samuel, Otto Fenichel, and others" (1950:xii). The meeting of minds in this period was, indeed, remarkable. Many of the key texts of this period are milestones of social theory, and several dovetail to form an invaluable resource for insight into chimerical antisemitism.29 These authors were deeply interested in the demonological side of antisemitism. Fenichel, an eminent psychoanalyst with Marxist leanings-an early ally of Wilhelm Reich and the guiding spirit of a miniature circle of discreetly left-wing Freudians-had written a psychoanalytic account of antisemitism in exile in 1937.30 The prolific Maurice Samuel ("a Zionist who thinks, a wit with ideas" [Fischer 1941:243]) wrote two early books on antisemitism (1932, 1924) and many other works.31 His most incisive account of antisemitism was given in a brilliant course of lectures published in 1940 as The Great Hatred. Six years later, Sartre published Reflexions sur la question juive.32 The unifying insight of this new school of thought was well expressed by the psychohistorian Norman Cohn, who was ordered to examine fascist literature while serving in the
28 Otherswho were praisedincludedWilhelmReich, ErichFromm,ErikErikson,and AbrahamMaslow. Earlier, and Frenkel-Brunswik Sanford ([1945] 1987:108-113) had praised Fenichel, Horkheimer,and Ernst Kris in very similar terms. 29 Few writershave pursuedparallelsbetween Sartre,Samuel, et al. In Cramer'sstudy of the Frankfurt critique of antisemitism,which is perhapsthe key work in this field, Fenichel and Sartreare mentioned only in passing (1979:18, 112), while Samuel is overlooked completely. Other leading historians-Reichmann (1974), Bahr (1978), and Jay (1980)-are even more cursory.Wieviorka(1991a) and Hannush(1973) both mention the affinity between Adoro and Sartre,but say very little about it. 30 This paper,perhapshis "best"(Jacoby 1983:113), first appearedin 1940 and was later anthologizedby Ernst Simmel (1946). Fenichel, Simmel, Adorno,and Horkheimerwere all membersof the PsychoanalyticStudy Group of Los Angeles in the mid-1940s. Simmel's anthology containedessays by each of them. 31 Samuel collaboratedon Chaim Weizmann'smemoirs and also published novels, polemics, a celebrationof Sholem Aleichem, a biography of Herzl, and translationsfrom Yiddish, Hebrew, French, and German. See Goldsmith (1994), and Ozick (1977). 32 I will leave Freud to one side, since his relevance for the critique of antisemitism rests mainly on the applicabilityof his notion of projection,which was more extensively applied to antisemitismby Samuel, Sartre, and Fenichel than by Freud himself.

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONOF ENEMIES

215

British armyin 1945.33Cohn soon formed a "prettystrong suspicion.... I began to suspect that the deadliest form of antisemitism . . has little to do with real conflicts of interest between living people, or even with racial prejudice as such. What I kept coming across was, rather,a conviction that Jews-all Jews everywherein the world-form a conspiratorial body set on ruining and then dominating the rest of mankind."And this teaching appearedto be specifically modem, forming a decisive extension of the late medieval view that Jews are "mysteriousbeings, endowed with uncanny, sinister powers" (Cohn [1966] 1981:8, 25). Everyday religious and cultural strife had given way to a global dualism, a Manichaeanvision of a world divided between Jewish evil and Gentile good. in For Sartre,too, antisemitism is "at bottom a form of Manichaeanism," which good in opposed deities (1948:40). As Adorno and Horkheimer and evil are embodied note, these are usually said to embody an indwelling force of divine or demonic polarized deities influence, which ethnologists often call by the Melanesianterm mana ([1947] 1972:15-23; cf. Durkheim [1912] 1995). For antisemites, Jews embody evil mana and are thus "both of holy and accursed"(Fenichel [1940] 1946:18). "Knight-errant the Good, the antisemite Jew is also holy in his manner-holy like the is a holy man,"Sartrenotes (1948:43). '"The untouchables,like savages under the interdictof a taboo." Seeing Jews in this light is the first step away from realism, towardschimeria.Cohn is emphatic about the split this vision establishes between Jewish reality and antisemitic fantasy: "WhatJews really were or did or wanted, or what Jews possibly could be or do or want, had nothing whatsoever to do with the matter"([1966] 1981:25). The allegedly ulterior reality of evil mana is what occupies the Manichaeanantisemite, not the human reality of actual Jews. Sartreexpresses this idea with great clarity (1948:37-38): in on No doubtthe proletarian caricatures bourgeois" postersandnewspapers exactly "the "theJew."But this externalresemblance the same manneras the antisemitecaricatures should not deceive us. To the worker,what constitutesthe bourgeoisis his bourgeois status,thatis, an ensembleof externalfactors.... It is an ensembleof variousmodes of For what makesthe Jew is the presencein him of "Jewishness," behavior. the antisemite, a ... principleanalogousto phlogistonor the soporificvirtueof opium.We mustnot be on deceived;explanations the basis of heredityand race came later;they are the slender scientificcoating of this primitiveconviction.Long before Mendel and Gobineauthere was a horrorof the Jew, and those who felt it could not explainit exceptby saying,like for Montaigneof his friendship La Boetie: "Becausehe is he, becauseI am I." Without the presence of this metaphysicalessence, the activitiesascribedto the Jew would be entirelyincomprehensible. Adomo and his co-authorsillustratethis point with a wealth of evidence. Often, as Daniel Levinson observes in his chapteron antisemitism,sweeping generalizationsare advanced "about'the Jew,'when the Jews are actually [highly] heterogeneous"(1950:57). On inspection a cornucopia of inconsistencies surface. Levinson notes, for example, that subscales are indicatingJewish "seclusiveness"and "intrusiveness" strongly correlated.This correlation reveals "a deep contradictionin antisemiticideology. As a matterof simple logic it is impossible for most Jews to be both extremely seclusive and aloof and at the same time too intrusiveand prying"(1950:75-76).34
33 Poliakov (1980:35) calls Cohn a "pioneerand, in a sense, theoretician" the new historiography bias. of of He makes it clear that Langmuir,"l'erudithistorien de Stanford' (1980:40), is among Cohn's intellectualsuccessors. 34 'These contradictory criticisms,"as RudolphLoewenstein observes, "sometimescome from differentpeople, but almost as often from the same person"(1951:377).

216

THEORY SOCIOLOGICAL

Illogic, however, is symptomatic.This "self-contradictory rejectionof an entire group is ... more than a matterof faulty logic. Viewed psychologically, these results suggest a deep lying irrationalhostility directed against a stereotyped image to which individual Jews correspondonly partiallyif at all" (Levinson 1950:75-76). Plain evidence of the irrational hostility underthe surfaceof antisemitismis availablein two irreconcilableimages of Jews that many antisemites hold simultaneously.Maurice Samuel illustrates these views with passages from Hitler'sMein Kampf Alternatelyscornfuland fearful,Hitler calls Jews weak, timid, and contemptible-and then, without skipping a beat, calls them demonically energetic, relentless and powerful. For Samuel these views are not just different,but "incommensurable." Hitler sees Jews as a "terribleenemy"-"capable of the most daringvisions of conquest"-"and yet puny, unclean, and laughable."In this hall of mirrors,Jews are "bothelemental and ignominious, sublime and verminous"(Samuel [1940] 1988:18-20). Even if skeptics doubt "thatthe hard-headedleaders of the Nazi-Fascist groups accept at face value their own staggeringdescriptionsof the power of the Jews,"it is nevertheless clear, Samuel says, that "the vast mass of antisemites are sincere .... They do believe in the omnipotenceof the Jews, those weird, crafty,implacableJews"([1940] 1988:127). This belief is revealed with special clarity by the widespread and enduring popularity of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the Bible of "the most famous modem chimericalbelief' (Langmuir 1990a:341), namely, that world Jewry is a conspiratorialforce bent on world domination. The Protocols have been hailed by nearly every antisemitic group in this century despite their status as a patent forgery, copied nearly verbatim from a satire of Bonapartismby Maurice Joly (1864, in Bernstein [1935] 1971).35 Despite a large and outwardly successful campaign to prove the Protocols a fabrication-a Belgian court in
1935 ruled the book a "bold plagiarism . . . and absurdity" (Neumann 1944:488)-they

have continuedto circulatewidely, as Taguieff (1992) and many others have shown. In the success of this text we see a "remarkable folkloristic phenomenon,"the penetrationof a of magical worldview into "the culture-structure millions" (Samuel [1940] 1988:29). Where does this leave us? Samuel, Sartre, and their co-thinkers agree that latter-day unificationof logical opposites, antisemitismis chimerical-"Manichaean,"a "folkloristic" a worldview,akin, in some ways, to totemism. The principleof this chimeria,Samuel says, is "obsessionalexaggeration,"which antisemites mistake for "objectiveevaluation."And rationalists,he argues, mistake this exaggerationfor simple error."A notable instance of the false approach," writes, "was that of America'sJewish leadershipto [the movement he known as] Coughlinism."Rather than grasping the sheer madness of Father Coughlin's chimericalclaims, these Jewish leaders "concernedthemselves almost exclusively with the attemptto prove that what Coughlin said about them was not true"(Samuel [1940] 1988:5, 187).36Nor is this unusual.Indeed, "in every liberal discussion of anti-Semitismwhich has come to my notice," Samuel writes, "I have encountered the same obstinate refusal to distinguish between anti-Jewish sentiment and anti-Semitic hallucination."Yet there is a world of difference,he writes, between mere anti-Jewishness("a dislike of Jews based on contact, direct or indirect,"which is just "an ordinaryvariety"of ethnic or religious bias) and the "primitive terrorand folkloristic mental helplessness"of the true antisemite.There a between realities and conclusions. Jews is, in "obsessionalexaggeration," "maddisparity" are not, for antisemites,just one more unwelcome group. 'They are,"rather,"aboriginal
35 Hitler, in fact, called the see charge of plagiarism "the best proof that [the Protocols] are authentic"; Mein Kampf ([1925] 1943:307). Samuel cites this passage ([1940] 1988:127) as an illustrationof Hitler's "gibbering, immovable faith"in the Protocols. 36 The intellectual source of Father Coughlin's antisemitism was the Irish Catholic theologian, Denis Fahey, whose many volumes on the sins of the Jews form a kind of summatheologica of anti-Jewishstrictures.See, e.g., Fahey (1935).

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONOF ENEMIES

217

evil," and so "for the salvation of humanity,. . . there must be a total obliterationof the Jews" (Samuel [1940] 1988:10-11, 4-5, 167). Routine anti-Jewishnessis also real, but it would be folly, Samuel says, to imagine that this is the only danger we face. Chimerical hallucination,to be resisted, must be taken seriously in all its peculiarcomplexity.And this, in turn,requiresa refusalof the "simpliste" views of "hard-headed-no-damned-nonsense" rationalists.What is needed, Samuel says, is for "the obscurantistswho want to look for deeper causes" ([1940] 1988:47, 44). support Where do these deeper causes lie? Not only in the realm of belief, Samuel says, but in characterand motives as well. It is not merely chimerical "exaggeration" that must be but the "obsession"that gives it malevolent force. penetrated, Here Samuel parts company with those, like Langmuir, whose emphasis is mainly cognitive, and enters the sphereof neopsychoanalyictheory,where he is joined, once again, by Sartre,Adomo, and the others.

The AuthoritarianPersonality Adomo remarks,with reference to the lurid demonology in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, that "the assertionsof the agitatorare so spurious, so absurd,that there must indeed be very powerful emotional reasons why he can get away with them"(Adomo 1950:428). These reasons, he feels, lie in the realm of personality-specifically, in the constellationof tendencies that coincide in the so-called authoritarian personality. It would be bold to say too much about the vexed topic of authoritarianism passant. en The "authoritarian personality"thesis has been clouded by controversyever since it was formulated,and it remains hotly contested (although, as we will see below, antisemitism researchersare finding it increasingly compelling). All technicalities aside, Samuel gets to the heart of the notion when he links Manichaeanismto authoritarian love for leaders. "Oftenenough,"he points out, "thecitizen ... wants someone to come along and provide him with unshakableconvictions, a leader so overwhelminglyauthoritative that there is no appealfrom his pronouncements. Except in extremecases, the citizen will not actually say: 'I am not fit to rule myself, I am not fit to vote, choose, think, accept responsibility.I don't want freedom, I don't want the burden"'(Samuel [1940] 1988:71). But embracing the Fiihrerprinzip implies exactly that-and antisemitismlends a hand by giving the Leadera sacred Enemy fearsome enough to justify dictatorship. For the savior on horseback,the dragon is a pretextfor authoritarianrule.37 Adorno detected a similar tendency in the so-called prejudicedpersonality,who tends to combine authoritarianism with antisemitism and ethnocentrismin general. "He sees evil forces at work everywhereand easily falls for all kinds of superstitionsand fears of world The catastrophes." barely concealed nihilism of this personality,Adomo says, expresses the wish for a final battle between idealized forces of racial and moral purity and the unclean Other-the bigot "has no pity for the poor and is prone to consider the unemployed as naturally lazy, and the Jew as a misfit, a parasite who might as well be exterminated" (1950:427). Love for leaders, in short, often dovetails with hate for Others.38To explain these powerfullymixed emotions, Adomo invokes the psychoanalyticnotion of projection,which
37 This is especially true, Samuel says, for the socially and economically distressed:"smallpeople, the obscure and unimportant,those whose gifts of the spirit cannot be translatedinto economic-political power" ([1940] with which the Jewish problemis purely spectral" 1988:71). For these people, there are real afflictions "compared ([1940] 1988:52). Antisemitism appeals to the distressed, he concludes, for psychological reasons. Cf. Reich ([1948] 1975). 38 For an extended discussion of this theme, see Smith (1992).

218

SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY

Fenichel concisely defines as "seeing in others that which one does not wish to become conscious of in oneself' ([1940] 1946:19). Horkheimer,many years earlier, had already applied this category to antisemitism."Behind ... the rage over Jewish immorality,over and he Epicureanism materialism," wrote in 1936, "is hidden a deep erotic resentmentwhich demands the death of their representatives.They must be wiped out, if possible with
torments . . ." ([1936] 1993:101).39 Too much of the public, Horkheimer felt, is imbued

with a dangerousethic of self-denial. The unrulypassions that ascetics repress,he felt, are easily displaced into animosity against Jews and others who, it is imagined, dwell beyond the pale of self-repression.In the carnal sensuality and bloodlust of "the Jews" of popular fancy-soon to be depicted with unmatchedperversity by Celine in Bagatelles pour une massacre (1937)-Horkheimer found the unintended self-portraitof the antisemite.40In violent fantasy,he said, "virtuebetraysits own dream"([1936] 1993:101). The irrepressibly sadistic, sexually unbridled,world-conquering"Jews"of antisemitic fiction embodied the secret desires of the ascetically virtuous. To antisemitesit could thus be said, a la Horace: The story is told of you.41 Later,in collaborationwith Adorno and others, Horkheimerarguedthat radical authoritariansharbora nihilist impulse at odds with their conscious quest for order;the result is that, since "the totalitariancharactercannot admit to itself this wish for destruction, it projectsthe wish onto others, above all, the enemy which it has chosen, invented,or which has been inventedfor it by others, an enemy that is always imagined as inferior,just as he is dangerous. Fables of conspiracies and other evil things are spread about" ([19561 1972:176). Here, Sartreagrees, we enter "the domain of psychoanalysis. Manichaeanism conceals a deep-seated attractiontoward Evil. For the antisemite Evil is his lot, his Job's portion.Those who come after will concernthemselves with the Good, if there is occasion. As for him, he is in the front rank of society, fighting with his back turned to the pure virtueshe defends. His business is with evil" (1948:45). Sartreadds that what the antisemite "contemplateswithout intermission,that for which he has an intuition and almost a taste, is Evil. He can thus glut himself to the point of obsession with the recital of obscene or criminal actions which excite and satisfy his perverse leanings; but since ... he attributes
them to those infamous Jews . . . he satisfies himself without being compromised"

(1948:46). This, in a nutshell, is the psychoanalyticnotion of projectivechimeria. Projection as Construction A sociological notion is closely related.This rests, briefly,on the idea that social practices based on projective imputationsgive rise to real projected social powers (Smith, 1988). The power of money, for example, is unquestionablyreal, though it exists only in society. As Dorothy and W.I. Thomas (1928) so acutely noted, anythingthat is imagined to be real is, indeed, real in its consequences. Jews, who are imagined to be world-endangering plotters,are in this way projectivelyendowed with a social statusthey would not otherwise have. This status is not, of course, that of conspirators,but of people who are stigmatized
39 This appearsto be an allusion to Chaucer'sCanterburyTales, where it is reported,in the Prioress'stale, that '"The magistrateat once put every Jew/To death with tormentand with shamefulness."See Chaucer(1949:185). 40 Cf. Julia Kristeva'srecent account of Celine's antisemitism (1990). 41 Thereis reasonto suspect, in fact, thatthe very idea of projectionsprangfrom the effort to grasp antisemitism. As early as 1889, Rabbi Isidore Loeb assertedthat "those who accuse the Jews accuse or betraythemselves. The Jew is there only to put into action the dream they carry within themselves. They burden [us] with playing their place in the dramawhich simultaneouslyattractsand terrifiesthem" (1889:184-185; cited by Dundes 1991:359directed 360). And it may not be mere coincidence thatFreudfirsttied the notion of projectionto paranoid"distrust against others"in 1896, at a time when he was deeply disturbedby the meteoric rise of antisemitismin Vienna ([1896] 1963:172; see Klein 1985:69ff.).

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONOF ENEMIES

219

as conspirators.And this stigma, this evil mana, is conferredupon Jews without rational concern for their real deeds or qualities. This process rests entirely on chimeria yet it is no less effective in its real social consequences. Jews may deny that they conspire against Gentiles, but they cannot deny their own persecution.Their chimerical status has consequences. The reason this is true is that the category of "projection," Sartreas for Durkheim, for denotes not only the way people view objects and each other, but also the way they treat these objects and people. In this sense, projection is a matter of practice as well as psychology-and it has objective results. Exchange and ritual, for example, give rise to value and divinity. Antisemitic projection,meanwhile, produces the negative mana of the Jew. This mana is not "real"in any ontologically simple sense, but it is very much a social fact in Durkheim'ssense. This is especially clear in the case of those assimilatedEuropean Jews who denied their basic Jewishness, yet were killed in the Holocaust along with all the others. What matteredwas not what they said or did, but how they were perceived and treated. They discovered, to their woe, that they were the bearersof a lethal social status conferredupon them by antisemites. Thus even their very "Jewishness" was, in a certain social sense, fabricatedby their enemies. Sartre explains this lucidly. "In a bourgeois society," he writes, "it is the constant movement of people, the collective currents,the styles, the customs, all these things, that in effect create values. The values of poems, of furniture,of houses, of landscapes derive in large partfrom the spontaneouscondensationsthat fall on these objects like a light dew; they are strictly national and result from the normal functioning of a traditionalist. . . society" (1948:80). The "value"of the Jews, Sartresays, is createdby society: "theJew has a personalitylike the rest of us, and on top of that he is Jewish. It amounts in a sense to a doubling of the fundamentalrelationshipwith the Other"(1948:79). In the late medieval period, Jews were barredfrom production and thereby driven into moneylending;it was the religious prejudice of medieval Christendomthat tied Jews to money. Thus "it is the Christianswho have created the Jew."The unavoidableimplication, Sartrefeels, is that "it
is not. . . Jewish character that provokes antisemitism" but the "choice ... of Manichaean-

ism which explains and conditions antisemitism"(1948:68; cf. 94-95, 143, 41). Jews are the chosen enemy-chosen projectively,not intentionally.As "evil personified," innerdemons.And it is the antisemitewho acts-who chooses, they embody the antisemite's personifies,and murders.At times, of course, other scapegoatsare chosen: Jesuits, masons, the "Illuminati." Thus Jews are "responsible" antisemitism only in the sense that, as for Fenichel observes, their unique relationshipto Islam and Christianitymakes them exceptionally well suited to serve as "the carrierof this kind of projection"([1940] 1946:20). The Jew is, in this sense, a productof the Manichaeanimagination-both "accursedand holy" thanks to chimericalpractice. THE ENEMY AS COLLECTIVEREPRESENTATION Sartre'scritics have often deridedthis analysis. One early critic, for example, wrote that in Sartre'svision "the Jew becomes a sort of phantom, a sociological misunderstanding, a mistake in identities rather than an identifiable being" (Eppstein 1949:186). This was equally the verdict of many other early critics, including Rabi (1947) and Patri(1948), and it was upheld "unanimously" laterwritersas well (cf. Sungolowsky 1962/1963:69). Even by those who praise Sartrehighly often fault him on this score.42Poliakov was thus speaking for many when he concluded, in 1980, that Sartrehad been guilty of reducingthe Jews to
42 See e.g. Hertzberg(1960:98 and n. 77).

220

SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY

spectralfigures of "purenegativity"who exist "as nothing more than productsof antisemitism" (1980:225). These criticisms reflect an anticonstructionist viewpoint that is helpful to consider. Is in fact, reducing Jews to nonpersons?Is this, generally, what writers who identify Sartre, and critiquechimeria are doing? Art critic HaroldRosenbergansweredthese questions positively when he argued,against Sartre,thatJews are not in fact what antisemitesmake of them; they are, rather,objectively real, figures of history and religion. 'To show that the origin of the Jew lies not in Abraham but in the anti-Semite,Sartrewould have to indicate at what point the Jew of formertimes ceased to exist and a different Jew was born out of antisemitism"(1949:12). Confident, evidently, that this challenge is unanswerable,Rosenberg declares that "Sartrehas misunderstood fundamentallythe problem of identity" (1949:12).43 Elaine Marks echoes this claim. Asserting that "Jews, Blacks and women have distinctive traits, which neither non-Jews, nor whites, nor men invent," she reproaches Sartre for his alleged refusal to acknowledge"a reality that is not included in a point of view," saying that, "as a result, the specificity of the 'question juive' is lost and Sartre's Jew becomes slightly grotesque, becomes in fact what the antisemitethinks he is in fantasy"(1972:784). This sharpreproof is repeatedby StuartCharme:"Because Sartrecould not conceive of Jewish life without reference to the ideas of antisemitism,he ended up indirectly endorsing the antisemite's image of the Jew" (1991:139). In my opinion, however, these accusations betray a grave misunderstanding.Sartre's essential claim is that "the Jews" of antisemitic myth are wholly chimerical-i.e., pure demonologicalfictions. This in no way implies that actual Jews lack an autonomousreality. It is, in fact, precisely Sartre'spoint that the imaginaryJews of Manichaeanmyth depart from the Jews of history.The issue we face is the problematiccharacterof the connection between real Jews and the Pseudo-Jew of antisemitic tall tales. Historical Jews have countless real traits,some of which make them ideal screens for chimericalprojection.But they are utterly unlike the demons of Judeophobicfantasy. Jews are not omnipotent and sinister plotters, master criminals or the riddle of history at last revealed. "Jewishrule"is a myth, purely and simply. There are no "Elders of Zion." Jews do not ritually murder Christianchildren. The conceptual issue here is the difference between chimeria and routine prejudice. Sartre's critics seem to think that antisemitism is reality-based, springing not from a Manichaeandemonology but from antipathytowardthe real traits of historicalJews. As it happens,even HaroldRosenbergunderstoodthe errorof this outlook at one point. Writing years before he reviewed Sartre,Rosenberg said that the analyst who finds an "objective" basis for antisemitismin the traits of the Jews "is like the policeman who solves the crime by arrestingthe corpse."He added: "If you want to understandanti-Semites, you should analyze the anti-Semites,not the Jews. Those who ask: Whatis it aboutthe Jews that causes people to hate and attackthem?-these questionershave alreadydecided that the Jews are responsiblefor anti-Semitism,thatthe victim is guilty of the crime"([1944] 1973:243, 242).
to Nearly twenty years later Rosenbergreturned the attack,saying that while Sartre"hasalways been a friend of the Jews," his theory is "the raw materialout of which anti-Semitismhas been formed."And he adds, with misplaced irony ([1966] 1973:225), that "most of us believe that there is such a thing as a Jew (and Sarte should be praisedfor taking a positive stand on this)." Then, in flagrantlyself-contradictory style, he criticizes Sartrefor venturingsympatheticif not reverentopinions on the real qualities of Jews. I find Sartre'sportrait of the "inauthenticJew" far less credible than his account of the antisemite, and occasionally objectionable(cf. Suleiman 1996). But Sartreplainly did see a Jewish reality,and he made a modest effort to understand reality historically.He saw nothing "essential"or racial in Jewish qualities, and his main this criticism of "inauthentic Jews" was that they had been "persuaded the anti-Semites"that they do indeed "have by the characteristics with which popularmalevolence endows [them]"(1948:94-95). To my ears this does not sound like antisemitism.
43

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONOF ENEMIES

221

If Sartreis right, there are three realities to account for: not just Jews and antisemites, but mythic Jews as well. These ghostly, walking tropes are not Jews. They are social of representations people, not people per se. There are, to be sure, good historical reasons these simulacra were named after a living people, and antisemites often try to give why their obsession a veneer of credibility-by listing all Jews, real or imagined, on Wall Street or in the Kremlin;by tracing every disaster to the visible hand of Israel; or by recalling Marx and Rothschild.But all this is window dressing and self-deception.Memories of real Jews and historical analogies are distorted beyond recognition in exercises of this kind. Like the Chimera,the demonic Jew is a fabulous monster. The Chimera,daughterof Typhonand Echidna,foe of Pegasus and Bellerophon,was an impossible mixture, depicted, in an early Hittite bas-relief, as a beast with wings, a lion's head, a woman's head, and a serpentfor a tail. In Greek myth, the Ximaira was at once a lion, a goat, and a snake. The analogy should be plain. Lions, goats, and snakes are real In creatures-but the composite of the three is an imaginary creature.44 the same way, Marx and Rothschild were undeniably real and significant figures, the commualthough nist-capitalist"Councilof the Elders of Zion"is pure fantasy.Deducing a global conspiracy from the union of Marx and Rothschild is like deducing the speed of light from the union of two and two. The actual deeds of real Jews, added together,will never yield a transcendental result. Let me be as clear as possible. It is true that antisemitestake the actual Jews of history as their premise. Jews did play a singular role in the origin of Christianity,and they are singled out for special attentionin the Islamic and Christiantraditions.Jews unquestionably did seem uncanny to medieval Christians,and they did play a distinctive role as moneylenders in late medieval Europe. Marx was instrumentalin forging the intellectual armamentariumof socialism, and the Rothschilds were centralfigures in early modem finance. None of this, however, changes the basic fact-that demonologists turn truth into myth. The obsessive, exaggeratedclaims of chimericalantisemitesare radicallydivorcedfrom the reality they claim as their premise. And even were we to agree, for example, that actual historical contacts between Jews and Gentiles were a necessary condition for the rise of antisemitism,that would not mean that antisemitismin its hallucinatoryphase is actually about Jews. An actual people served as a point of departurefor this creed, but the figures that people its intellectual horizon are imaginary. HannahArendt thought differently.She decried the "modem sophists"who absolve the Jews of "all specific . . .responsibility" for antisemitism, and who wrongly affirm their "complete and inhuman innocence," "regardlessof what they had done or omitted to do, regardless of vice or virtue."The real source of twentieth-centuryantisemitism,she said, "mustbe found in certainaspects of Jewish history and specifically Jewish functions during the last centuries."Claims to the contrary amount to a "negationof the significance of human behavior,"in a vain quest to win a "lastingvictory at the expense of reality."And she stresses the stimulus given to antisemitismby the "useless wealth" and concentrated power of Jewish financiers,especially the Rothschilds (Arendt [1951] 1968:8-9, 26f.; cf. 68f., where she assesses Disraeli's role). The Jewish people, Arendt concludes, "does not simply cease to be co-responsiblebecause it became the victim of the world'sinjusticeand cruelty"([1951] 1968:8). This is precisely what I reject. However much real Jewish deeds may have inspired for chimerical fantasies, they cannot be assigned "co-responsibility" such fantasies. Consider, e.g., the "rumorin Orleans"that sociologist Edgar Morin analyzed so perceptively
44 In Flaubert's Temptationof Saint Anthony, Sphinx calls Chimera "Fantasy"and Chimera calls Sphinx "Unknown."Coleridge, earlier, had called Chimera "the very figure of Fancy."For furtherdetails, see Ginevra Bompiani (1989).

222

SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY

([1969] 1971). Orleansfell into a panic when rumorscirculatedthatJewish boutiqueowners were kidnappingyoung female shoppers and selling them into white slavery. The police, the press, and even a team of sociologists led by Morin found absolutely no truth to the rumor.Yet the Orleanspublic was not to be dissuaded.Where,in this, is the "responsibility" of the Jews? In the fact that a few Jews owned stores in Orleans?That, it should be clear, makes no sense at all. Yet Arendt's thesis should cover cases like this one, since, in microcosm, this is a chemically pure case of antisemiticchimeria. The Jews of myth and rumor,then, are VirtualJews, Simulated Jews-not real people but projectively constructed enemies, mythic abstractions from history. In the psychic economy of the antisemite, the VirtualJew is a metaphorfor other forces, the projection of other concerns-and is thus linked to real Jews in name only. This "Jew"is a shadow in a dreamworld.45 What significance,if any, might this perspectivehave for sociologists? Are there clearly markedpaths to follow, or errors to avoid, if we hope to find Maurice Samuel's "deeper causes"of antisemitism?These are the questions I explore in the final sections of this paper. MYTH, TRUTH, AND CRITIQUE My argument, thus far, is sevenfold: that, unlike routine anti-Jewish bias, Manichaean antisemitismis a kind of chimeria;that chimerias,in general, are so hallucinatorythat they are qualitativelydistinct from routine biases; that chimerical antisemitism often rises to obsessional as well as delusional heights (culminating,in extreme cases, in genocide); that obsessional chimeriasare given force and ferocity by psychodynamictendencies at the level of character; that, in the case of genocidal antisemitism,charactertraitsreminiscentof "the authoritarian personality"seem to be active; that the psychic mechanism which creates the Satanic Jew of obsessional myth is "projection," the psychoanalyticsense; and that this in SatanicJew is a socially constructedenemy, with a projectivestatus that cannot be wished away. This status-this shadow-falls like a veil over real Jews.46 This shadow also obscures vision. Few analysts, as we will see, are able to keep antisemitismin focus, even when they affirm the notion of chimeria.The unrealityof the chimericalJew is simply too pronounced,it seems, to be readilyintelligible. How can fiction be fact? What divides one fantasy from another?Where are the boundariesto be drawn? And how can we penetrate the veil of myth making and apologetics to decode the psychology of conspiratorialism? To clarify these issues, it will help to glance briefly at several noteworthyrecent efforts to answer queries of this kind. No one yet has taken the thesis of "socially constructive" obsession and illusion very far. For mainstreamsociology, "antisemitism" remains little more than "hostilityto Jews."Whetherthis animus is reality-basedor delusional, ordinary or obsessional, is a questionthatis not often posed. Yet even scholarswho do take chimeria
45 To be sure, Jews have often been vilified for prosaic religious or social reasons. Even what Langmuircalls is "xenophobia" largely reality-based.But genocidal chimeriais altogetherdifferent.Psychologist J.F. Brown was hence wrong when he wrote that antisemitic"stereotypesshow exaggeration,distortion,and omission of characteristics; but they scarcely ever show characteristicswhich are completely nonexistent" (1942:129). On the contrary,the distinctive quality of chimericalJudeophobiais precisely its detachmentfrom reality. 46 This point, it will be apparent,closely resembles what W.E.B. DuBois said about "the veil of color" in The Souls of Black Folk ([1903] 1989). And it should be noted that even non-Jews are often transfigured, the power by of projection, into mythic Jews. Roosevelt, Stalin, and even Hitler have all been widely feared and hated-as "Jews"!For Japanese antisemites, meanwhile, the United States as a whole is widely regardedas a Judaizedif not literally Jewish nation. For Hitler, Bolshevism was "Jewish"-though in reality, of course, most Bolsheviks were ethnic Russians (or, as in Stalin'scase, Georgian). All this, it seems to me, is furtherevidence of the sheer delusionalityof chimericalantisemitism,and yet another reason to cast a skeptical eye on claims that Jews somehow bear responsibility for the wild extrapolationsof antisemites,who manage to find "Jews,"and Jewish evil, whereverthey look.

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONOF ENEMIES

223

seriously often show an unsteadygrasp of this question. This is clear in several of the most acclaimed recent studies, in which a Sartreanstress on the spectralityof the Satanic Jew proves to be a very uncertaingesture.

The Specificityof Chimeria Five writers in particularcommand our attention:Pierre-AndreTaguieff, an authorityon the worldwide popularity of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion; Michel Wieviorka, a prolific author and a close associate of the sociologist Alain Touraine;Elisabeth YoungBruehl, the author of respected biographies of Anna Freud and Hannah Arendt; Daniel Goldhagen, the authorof a harsh and profoundly controversialindictmentof the German people for acting (he says) as Hitler's WillingExecutioners(1996); and Goldhagen'sfather, Erich Goldhagen, whose writings in the late 1970s are the original locus of the "willing executioners"argument.47 All of these writers sound, at times, like Sartre or Samuel. Consider, for example, Taguieff, who seeks to lay bare the semantic structureof popular antisemitic ideas of and "Judeo-plutocratic" "Judeo-republican" plots. In all such theories, he says, the leading the principle is a chimerical vision of the "Anti-Jew," real Jew reduced to the anonymity of a genre, "type personified."In such cosmologies, Jew and Aryan are constructedby of "symmetricalschismogenesis,"leading finally to the "extermination the Perverse-Rival,
... the absolutely malevolent counter-type" (1988:167).48 And this Anti-Jew, Taguieff

stresses, is strictly imaginary(1992:116-117). Wieviorka,similarly,finds the crux of the Jewish conspiracymyth in the personification of "evil, imputedto the Other." declareshimself "withAdorno,"stressingthe "dissociaHe tion of two orders of problems"-the real and imaginary.Since these orders are, he says, "wholly separate," "one must explain racism entirely without reference to any racial reality-as Sartresaid in his own way, in a celebratedformula, when he affirmedthat the Jew is defined by the gaze of the Other: 'It is the antisemite who creates the Jew"' (1991a:56-59).49 For Young-Bruehl,echoing and amplifying a point from Samuel, antisemitismis "the obsessional prejudice,"which differs from ordinaryanti-Jewishnessby virtue paradigmatic of the "constant'obsessional exaggeration'of Jewish power"revealed by the illusion that Jews can "mobilizeboth capitalistsand communistsfor theirinternational cabal"(1996:355, 216, citing Samuel [1940] 1988:5, 10). Samuel's influence is also evident in Erich Goldhagen's formula that the Nazis' "venomous hatred"of the Jews is clearest in the "vivid satanic imagery"of their diatribesagainst "the Jew"-"the world enemy, the destroyerof civilisation, the parasite among the nations" (1978:3, citing a passage quoted by Samuel [1940] 1988:10). Goldhagen'sthesis, later fleshed out by Daniel Goldhagen, is that "the mainspringof the Holocaust [lay] in the mythical vision of Jewrythat animatedthe Nazis," and that "thechartermyth of Nazism" was "thetheory of the Jewish conspiracy." The Jews murdered the Holocaust,Goldhagenwrites, died at the handsof "mendrivenby a figment in of their imagination"(1978:9, 6, 12).
Daniel Goldhagenvows fidelity to his father'svision in many places. "Genocide ... is the logical conclusion of a certain mode of constructionof Otherness,of which the Jews demonized by Hitlerism stand as the paradigm. 'The fascists (read: 'the Nazis) did not consider the Jews as a minority, but as another race, the incarnationof the absolute negative principle; the happiness of the world depended on their elimination"(Taguieff 1988:167). 49 Like Collette Guillaumin,Wieviorka also stresses "theproductionof an imaginaryand racisante perception of the Other"(1991a:72-74); and cf. the new English version of this work (Wieviorka1995). ElsewhereWieviorka adds that this dialecticalprocess often depends on factors "havingnothing to do with the actual relationsbetween the racist and victimized groups"(1993:55).
47 48

224

SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY

Daniel Goldhagen,meanwhile, could not be more emphaticin statinghis conviction that Third Reich "beliefs about [the Jews] were absolutely fantastical, the sort of beliefs that ordinarilyonly madmenhave of others."Indeed, "whenit came to the Jews,"the perpetrators of the Holocaust were virtuallyunique in their "pronenessto wild, 'magical thinking,' ... .their incapacity for 'reality-testing"(1996:412f.). He concludes, in Sartreanfashion, that "antisemitism tells us nothing about Jews, but much about antisemites and the culture that breeds them" (1996:39).50 These claims and definitions are entirely consistent with a Samuelesque critique of chimeria.The authorsdepartfrom Samuel, however, when they stray beyond definitionsto issues of context and implication. At this level they falter, and in several ways. Two problems are most salient. The first is classificatory, concerning the range and inclusiveness of the notion of chimeria;and the second is substantive,concerningthe causal relationshipbetween chimeriaand sadism. To what extent, briefly,is Manichaeanantisemitism correlated with outwardly similar prejudices? And to what extent is this form of antisemitismcorrelatedwith authoritarianism? Young-Bruehl,Taguieff, and Wievorka all offer crystal clear statements of the premise of chimeria, and Young-Bruehl,in fact, expressly endorses the term as well. (She praises Langmuirfor "effectively ... drawing a line" between ordinaryanti-Jewishethnocentrism and "the antisemitism of 'chimerical character,'which paved the way to Auschwitz" [1996:76-77].) But all three muddy the waters when they stray from this premise. Taguieff, seeking to formulatea general theory of racism, posits that there are two basic forms of racism: "bio-inegalitarian" (zoologically racist) and "differentialist" (concealing racial concerns under the rubric "culturaldifference").This helps him analyze the French New Right and its well-publicized shift from biological to "culturalist" racism. But as a classificatorycriterionTaguieff'sdistinction is too frail to serve its purpose. Unlike Langmuir's contrastbetween chimeria and "realistic"prejudice,Taguieff'sdistinction occludes the most salient feature of antisemitism-essentialism. Jews, or any group, can be stigmatized as "essentiallyevil" on racial, religious, or culturalgrounds. Hence the fundamental issue is not which kind of "difference"is assigned to such a group, but whether this difference is regardedas ethical and essential. A group that is not "essentially"evil would not plot against humanity.Nor would it be necessary to annihilatesuch a people. To penetrateManichaeanphenomenalike antisemitism,in other words, we need to focus not merely on the formal "racisation" "differentialisation" a people, but on the degree or of to which, in the discourse of "race"or "culture," these constructsare regardedas markers of essential evil. The difference that matters is the degree to which a people is demonized, not merely the pseudo-scientificor semanticdistinctionsthat veil or legitimatethis demonization. For the Manichaean,the world is indeed divided-between good and evil. When "races" or cultures are construedin these terms, they enter the realm of the Manichaean.But the essential Manichaen concept is essence, sunderedinto antitheticalmoral halves and personified by opposing hosts of angels and demons. The practicalimport of Taguieff'sdistinction is revealed by Wieviorkawhen he affirms that antisemitismis, indeed, a form of antimoder racial differentialism.The implication, he concludes,is thatparanoiaaboutthe "worldJewish conspiracy" functionallyequivalent is to fear of "fanaticalIslam"(1991b:77) or, for that matter,to bias against Asian immigrants (1993:55). Young-Bruehltakes a similar position. Although she never retreatsfrom her
50 Elsewhere Goldhagen cites a memoir by Melita Maschmann,recalling her years as a member of the Hitler youth. "Those Jews," she writes, the Jews of popular stereotype, "were and remained something mysteriously menacing and anonymous. They were not the sum of all Jewish individuals ... They were an evil power, something with the attributesof a spook" (cited in Goldhagen 1996:88).

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONOF ENEMIES

225

claim that antisemitismis, in principle, an obsessional prejudice, she dilutes the force of this claim by widening the circle of obsessional prejudices to include "Japanophobia," German rage against Turks, anti-Asian prejudices in East and South Africa, and so on (1996:344-346, 354, 461, 543-544, 575). Each of these prejudicesis, of course, a grave and complex problemin its own right, but the parallelswith antisemitismthat these authorsallege are anythingbut obvious. What are we to think, for example, of Young-Bruehl'sassertion that "the obsessionality of Japan in bashing in the United States has its counterpart Japan,where the Jews are the culprits"? is Or her claim that "prejudice againstTurksin Germany" a phenomenon"of the same type as antisemitism"(1996:461, 544)? I find these claims false and ratherstrange.This is not because I regardantisemitismas utterly unique or a holy mystery. Obsessional Jew-hatred does have unique features, ones. But I believe that antisemitismcan be accuratelyassigned including very remarkable to a wider class of phenomena. This is the burden of my argument that Manichaean antisemitismis a form of chimeria-a claim thatYoung-Bruehland Wieviorkaoccasionally echo. What, then, divides their viewpoint from mine? And what more can we say aboutthe classification of antisemitism? The crux of the matter, once again, is that Jews are the objects of an obsessional in exaggerationso extreme that they are transfigured, thought,into literally transcendental, Luciferian figures of bestiality and danger. It is possible, of course, for other groups to share this fate, and history offers several examples of groups that have been similarly vilified: "heretics"in medieval Christendom, "soulstealers"in late-imperial China, the Illuminatiand masons in the aftermathof the FrenchRevolution. But there is a specificity to chimeriasthat we miss entirely if we revertto the idea that, since every prejudicedistorts truthto some extent, every bias is Manichaean.Not every exaggerationis equal. Not every lie is a Big Lie. Chimerias,now and in historicalmemory,are so qualitativelycontraryto realitythatthey They have an antitheticalrelationto truth,not one of simple negate it, utterlyand abstractly. distortion. If this is true, then Young-Bruehland Wieviorka are not sufficiently discriminatingin their claims. Muslims and Asian or Turkishmigrants may be reviled, but currentlyonly Jews have the misfortuneto be the object of a globally diffused conspiracytheory.Consider, for example, the JapaneseantisemitismthatYoung-Bruehlequatesto "Japanophobia." Jews, for Japanese antisemites, are the protagonists of a fierce and calculating war against everythingJapanese.Jews are said to rule the United States, the big U.S. corporations,and Is the world's finances. They are said to plot economic and even nuclear ruin for Japan.51 "Japanbashing"equally hallucinatory?Clearly not. Japan'scritics may overstateJapanese power or ill will, but with rareexceptions they do not make mountainsout of mere rumors of molehills. Japanis in fact a formidablecapitalist power. Japanesebanks are indeed the world'slargest. And public opinion in the United States is not fevered with chimericalfears of Japaneseconspiracy. The same applies to Islam. Not until fear of 'fanatical Islam" is as delusional as Manichaean antisemitism will it qualify as a form of chimeria; and even then it would remain a minor chimeria until it capturedthe imaginationsof tens of millions of people. The question, then, is how widely and meaningfully the concept of chimeria can be applied. A limiting case is the position (defended by "strict"constructionistsin the social problemsfield) that all "claims"about groups and culturesare equally social constructions, and that, as an act of agnostic faith, analysts should rigorously abstain from judging any
51 The Aum Shinrikyocult even blamed Jews for the 1994 genocide in Rwanda.

226

SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY

claims by criteria of "truth." Hence leading figures in this field agree that occult and even fanatically ethnocentric claims should be judged no differently than any others. Ibarra and Kitsuse, for example, avow a "methodological commitment to refrain from privileging" one claim over another. On the basis of this "commitment," they distance themselves from the very idea of "innocent victims" and speak with clinical detachment about the rhetorical quality of "negative terms ... emblematic of forms of discrimination: intolerance, oppression, sexism, racism" (1993:29, 40, 38). In this framework, racism is little more than a "negative term" in a moral rhetoric. And antisemitism can be little else, since this method reduces all social "problems" to "claims" and affirms that all claims are equally constructed, and hence equally undecidable (Pollner 1993:202; Troyer 1993:126).52 One might ask: Is there no difference between crying "Jewish conspiracy" and chronicling Jewish history? From the strict constructionist standpoint, the answer can only be "No." A claim is simply a claim-nothing more.53 This, clearly, is the maximal possible extension of the notion of social construction. For these theorists, myth and truth are indistinguishable; hence the very notion of chimeria would be meaningless to them-save, perhaps, as the rhetoric of yet another unverifiable "claim" about society. This is not what Berger and Luckmann meant when they first spoke of the "social construction of reality." On the contrary, Berger and Luckmann distinguished plainly between mythic constructions concerning Jews and identities which emerge from ordinary interactions. The mythic Jew, they say, is a classic example of a "type" identity in which there is "a total identification of the individual with his socially assigned typifications," so that "he is apprehended as nothing but that type." The ultimate consequence of this typification is to "bestow an ontological and total status on a typification that is humanly produced" ([1966] 1973:108-9).54 Muslims, Japanese businessmen, and Asian immigrants are not widely typified in this way. Are there other groups, then, which are chimerically typified? One complex case that merits attention is the vilification of Tutsis by Hutus before and after the Rwandan genocide of 1994. Some authorities on this genocide argue that the Rwandan conflict pivoted around "antihamitic racism," which they characterize in phrases borrowed from critics of antisemitism (Chretien et al. 1995:139-207).55 Chretien says that the Tutsis massacred by Hutu chauvinists were victims of a kind of racist "diabolization." Originally a cattle-herding warrior people who were clearly distinct from the Bantu peasants over whom they established dominion five hundred years ago, the Tutsis ultimately evolved into an ethnically tinged ruling class; and when Belgian colonialists early in this century declared that the Tutsis were not Black Africans but a "bronze" race of "Hamites," they were imposing ideas of race and Old Testament genealogy that were entirely foreign to traditional Rwandan thought.56 Chretien and his co-authors argue, however, that racialized
52 This reasoning suggests, as one possible reductio ad absurdam, that astrology and physics are equally uncertain.David Heise (1988) does not shy away from even this conclusion, saying that "truthis a will-o'-thewisp." 53 Joel Best (1993) calls for a "contextualist" alternative strictconstructionism permitreasoned,empirically to to between opposing claims. As an example, he cites the growing popularityof the irrational groundeddiscrimination fear of a "satanist" conspiracy,"which should be subject to critical scrutinyas an example of a myth, not simply a "claim."And Philip Jenkins(1992) notes the parallelsbetween antisatanism antisemitism,addingthat, given and the propercircumstances,antisatanismcould easily evolve into a new subspecies of antisemitism. 54 Such total typifications, they say, can take forms ranging from everyday beliefs about Jews to "complex theoriesof Jewishnessas a manifestationof biology ('Jewish blood'),psychology ('the Jewish soul') or metaphysics ('the mystery of Israel)" (Berger and Luckmann[1966] 1973:109). 55 Echoing Poliakov, although without citing him, Chr6tienand his co-authors speak of the "new harvest of hate"that grew from the "diabolization" the Tutsis by Hutu propagandists of (1995:141). "Harvestof Hate"is the title of an early Poliakov book ([1951] 1974), and "causalit6diabolique"is the title of one of his later works (1980). 56 For the remarkablycomplex interpenetration class and ethnicity in pre-colonial and colonial Rwanda, see of Smith (1995a; cf. Smith 1996, in press).

notions of "Tutsi"and "Hutu"identity did ultimately win popular acceptance, and later supplied part of the motive force for genocide when the Hutu government sought to mobilize the largely Hutu public to slaughterthe largely Tutsi political opposition. To a significant extent this effort succeeded (see Omaarand de Waal 1995), and Chretien and of his co-authorscredit this fact, in part, to the antihamitic"diabolisation" the Tutsis that Hutu propagandistsengineered. Is this, in fact, an instance of chimeria? Perhaps. Without systematic data on public opinion, it is, of course, hard to know exactly what was said and believed in Rwanda in the pre-genocidal period. But certain facts are clear. It is true, for example, that Hutu chauvinistsworked overtime to propagatea fearsome image of "thewicked Tutsis,"ousted from power in 1961 but scheming to obtain revenge. And it is also true that most Tutsis in Rwanda were nothing like the stereotype;the large majoritywere poor peasants,just like most Hutus. On the other hand, this stereotypewas not fabricatedfrom whole cloth-Tutsi lords had wielded great power just a generationearlier, and in 1990 exiled Tutsi veterans of Ugandan civil wars had declared war against the Rwandan government.Nor did Hutu propagandistsclaim that Tutsis are the heart of a "world conspiracy."In fact, they were often said to be pawns of Uganda. Finally, we have reason to believe that the organizers of the genocide, seeking to minimize their own culpability,hope to capitalizeon the popular stereotypeof a sadistic mob, spontaneouslyacting out its deepest and most atavisticwishes. On balance, the Rwandancase seems unclear to me, largely because we lack sufficient data to offer a fully informedjudgment on the ideas that spurredgenocidal actions. Thanks Even so, to grasp to Rakiya Omaarand her co-workers, this problem may be remedied.57 the Rwandan genocide we need to know not only what Rwandansthought, but how they felt. If mass chimeria did play a part, we will not fully understandwhat this means until we grasp the psychodynamic energies that turned myth into murder.Was "antihamitic in in racism"fueled by authoritarianism some sense? Is authoritarianism, general, implicit in chimeria?Or are there better alternativeexplanations? Questionsof this type are posed by Young-Bruehl, Taguieff,and Goldhagen.The answers be desired. they give, however, leave something to

Antisemitismand Authoritarianism? The least credible explanationis offered by Daniel Goldhagen,who credits chimeria with the power to turn Hitlerians into sadists as well as paranoids.His claim, briefly, is that Hitler'sfollowers, ensnaredin the web of chimericalillusion, were thereforevicious to their victims. They were cruel because they were deluded. Hence, instead of seeking to explain cruelty as well as chimeria, we can explain both at once. Goldhagenis well awarethatthis sounds like a monocausalexplanationof the Holocaust, and he is quick to add that he does, indeed, acknowledge the importanceof other causal factors. Yet to explain the motives of Hitler'sfollowers, he says, "a monocausalexplanation does suffice." The Hitlerian conception of Jews was so hallucinatorythat it was "in this historical instance causally sufficient to provide . . . the perpetrators[of the Holocaust] with the requisite motivation to participatewillingly in the exterminationof the Jews"
(1996:416-417; cf. 392-393).58

These "executioners"were willing, in other words, because they were chimerically mistakenabout the Jews. Their very illusions drove them to murder.To illustratethis point,
57 Rakiya Omaar and her co-workers (notably Alex de Waal) are making a tremendouseffort to learn what ordinaryRwandansdid and thought during the genocide. Their work (resulting,thus far, in Omaarand de Waal 1995) promises to yield one of the richest archives ever gatheredin connection with a genocidal conflict. 58 "A second claim is equally strong,"Goldhagen adds. "Not only was Germanantisemitismin this historical instance a sufficient cause, but it was also a necessary cause for such broad Germanparticipation" (1996:418).

228

SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY

Goldhagencites Otto Ohlendorf,the commanderof one of the four special SS units created by Himmler to carry out the exterminationof the Jews. Ohlendorf, Goldhagen says, was but "anything a sadist,"yet he "sharedthe demonological view of Jews common to German After establishing this (to his own satisfaction at least), Goldhagen asks, with a society." rhetoricalflourish: "How did such beliefs produce all of the distinctive features of the Holocaust?"(1996:394) The answer, he seems to say, is that they simply did. beliefs about Jews unleashedindwelling destructiveand ferocious Somehow, "Germans' that are usually tamed and curbedby civilization."How this might have happened passions kinds of dehumanizing Goldhagendoes not reveal.It is evidently enough to say that "certain beliefs about people, or the attribution extreme malevolence to them, are necessary and of can be sufficientto induce others to take partin the genocidal slaughterof the dehumanized people, if they are given properopportunityand coordination"(1996:397, 418). Since Goldhagenrepeatedlydecries the sheer "cruelty"of Hitler's followers, this is not a minorpoint. Yet he appearsto feel no unease aboutasserting,withoutevidence, that "only the common structureof cognition can account for the essential constancy of Germans' actions towards Jews" (1996:400; cf. E. Goldhagen 1979).59Lest there be any doubt, he untiringly stresses the "powerof the antisemitic ideology in producing Germanaction, in causing them to act in an otherwise abnormalmanner"(Goldhagen 1996:402).60 The palpableone-dimensionalityof this analysis is a cautionaryreminderof the folly of placing too great an explanatoryburden on the concept of chimeria. As a classificatory principle,the idea of chimeriais valuablefor what it suggests about the character, probable sources, and possible dangers of certainkinds of ideas influentialin revolutionaryconservative movements.Thereare also clear implicationsaboutthe strategiesthatmay be apropos to counter the influence of such ideas and movements. But if, like Goldhagen, we are content to identify chimeria without seeking to explain it, we are left with an abstraction, not an analysis. This is clear to Young-Bruehland Taguieff,both of whom seek a psychodynamic explanationfor the obsessive appeal of Manicheandelusion. Yet they, too, stumble at the startinggate. The problem in each case is that chimeria is reduced to an analytic frameworkthat occludes insight into the specificity of Manichaeanism.Taguieff, after dividing biological from cultural racism, finds "the core" of each in an obsessive fear of contact and crossbreeding, which he calls "mixophobia"(1993-94:123).61 How, we might ask, does this thesis help us grasp "Nordicreligion"or the Elders of Zion? How can fear of crossbreeding explain paranoiaabout the occult unity of capitalism and communism, "Judeo-plutocrats" and "Judeo-bolsheviks"? 'The globalization of the 'Jewish plot' realizes the maximal demonizationof the Jews," as Taguieff wrote on anotheroccasion (1992:214). If "mixophobia"is well-nigh universal, why have so few other peoples been "maximallydemonized"? There may be a kind of racist mixophobia;but Judeophobiahas anotherorigin. Young-Bruehltakes a very differenttack. As a psychoanalyticpurist and an admirerof Anna Freud, she is at times "moreFreudianthan Freud"(1996:297). This predisposes her to sympathize with Adomo-so much so that she calls "the classic antisemite . . . an obsessional characterequivalent to the Adomo group's authoritarian personality,"whose
59 Meanwhile, of historicallyspeaking,it should be evident thatthe alleged "constancy" Germanactions toward Jews is a figment of Goldhagen'simagination.Showing practicallyno interestin the historicalrecord, Goldhagen repeatedlyaffirmsthe "ubiquityand continuity"of chimerical antisemitismin Germany.This is contraryto most of the evidence. 60 "Why did these ordinary Germans turned executioners . . . exhibit so much wanton, spontaneous, and unbiddencruelty?The answer to this lies in their conception of the Jews" (1996:398). 61 This is who formally disavow racism. 'The differentialist true, Taguieff says, even for "differentialists" differences) at all costs. It is haunted imaginationwants to preserve collective identities (and inter-communitarian by the threatof the destructionof identities throughinter-breeding-physical and culturalcross-breeding.This is the 'mixophobic'core of differentialistracism"(1993-94:101).

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONOF ENEMIES

229

goal is "to eliminate a Jew who is both a filthy nothing and a secret world-conquering She conspirator."62 parts company with Adorno, however, when she tries to square this claim with the letter of psychoanalyticorthodoxy.Classifying antisemitismas just one of the obsessional biases, Young-Bruehlclassifies obsessional prejudice, in turn, as one of three "ideologies of desire"-each of which correspondsdirectly to one of the laterFreud's three hypothesized charactertypes. (Racism correlatesto the hysterical character,sexism to the narcissistic character,and antisemitismto the obsessional character.)Although this yields a neatly symmetricaltheory, it also poses a serious empirical problem. What data can be broughtto bear on this conjecture?Here Young-Bruehlmakes an odd logical leap. She says, first, that ideologies of desire, like Langmuir'schimerias, are divided by an impassablegulf from ordinaryethnic biases. Such ideologies are prejudices"againstimaginary or constructedgroups,"whereas ethnic biases target "realgroups."How, then, should we pursue this distinction?By psychology and sociology, respectively.Ordinaryethnocentrism must be studied by means of "intricatelyelaborate sociological work, because-to put the matterin stark terms-ethnocentrism involves real groups. Real groups have real histories, real social traditions,"and so on. But ideologies of desire, which Young-Bruehl also calls "orecticisms," must be approacheddifferently-not sociologically, but by means of "acomplex psychological description,which must precedeany effort to follow orecticists into public domains"(1996:298-299). This is curious. Chimerias, or "orecticisms,"defy sociological analysis, Young-Bruehl says, because they have as their objects fictitious groups. But it should be instantly clear that the object of prejudiceis never the prime focus of scrutinyfor the sociological analyst. Like Sartre or Samuel, the sociological critic of chimeria studies the antisemite, the chimericaltrue believer.And antisemitesare as "real"as any group that becomes the target of ethnic prejudice.Antisemitesnot only can be studiedby "intricately" sociological means, but often have been so studied. Hence Young-Bruehl's methodologicaldisavowal of sociological researchis an admission of self-limitation.Even though obsessional prejudicecan be studied, Young-Bruehlopts instead to simply "assume"the reality of her postulated charactertypes (1996:206-207). Chimeria,in this peculiarperspective,becomes an excuse for speculationratherthan an object of study. For deeperinsight into the nexus of relationsbetween antisemitismand authoritarianism, we must turn to scholars who are working directly in the field.

CHIMERIAAND FASCISM The question of the correlationbetween antisemitismand authoritarianism becomes much less abstractwhen we observe that today, as in the past, Manichaeanprejudice shows an elective affinity for fascism. It continues to seem likely, as Sartre and Samuel felt, that fascism and antisemitism are characterologicallyhomologous, and that their shared point of origin is, in fact, "authoritarian" characterstructure.This, at least, is one possibility that has been suggested by researcherswho are now studying the revival of chauvinism and chimeriain Europeand the formerUSSR. Once again, Adorno'snotion of the authoritarian personalityhas become popular. Nikolai Popov, for example, who heads the political surveys departmentof the Russian Centerfor Public Opinion Research,reportsthat inquirybased on a version of the F-Scale from (Adomo et al. 1950) shows that "the number of people [in the former USSR] with
62 Young-Bruehladds an even more strikingaffirmationof the authoritarian premise: 'The leader is the Great Obsessional.... He is the one to whom the obsessional can submit without feeling penetrated,attacked-so the submission is ecstatic, the innocent fulfillment of a great and greatly forbiddendesire"(1996:219).

230

THEORY SOCIOLOGICAL

authoritarian attitudes is twice those with the nonauthoritarian mentality."Over half of leaders are able to do more for the countrythan all Popov's respondentsagree that "strong the laws and talk," while fewer than a third disagree; and even more feel that "strictness and discipline" are the secret to childrearing(1995:125). In general, Popov says, there type of appearsto be "a deep penetrationinto mass consciousness ... of the authoritarian (1992:322).63And he concludes that Russia now appearsto be "fertilesoil for personality" the creationof a new Hitler"(1995:136). Another recent survey, in which Russians and Estonians were polled about eight outgroups (includingJews, democrats,and non-Russianminorities), showed that "authoritarianism strongly predictedeach prejudice."Negative items about Jews, which were culled groups such as Pamyat,"were more mainly "from statements ... by ultra-nationalistic strongly endorsed than negative claims about any other outgroup. One such item is the claim that "Jews have already conquered most of the Western world, and now they are trying to conquerus" (McFarland,Ageyev, and Abalakina 1993:207, 204-205). This belief in a Jewish plot is stronglyassociated,in turn,with a preferencefor Stalinism over democracyand a willingness to actively protest economic woes, "even by destroying Most Russians who say they would protest falling living standardsalso accept property." or entertainthe notion of a Jewish plot (Brym and Degtyarev 1993:6, 11; cf. Brym 1996). In Poland, meanwhile, people who say that Jews seek to "rule the world" also tend to prescriberesistance:"We have a right to fight on our own behalf [since] they are against us" (Krzeminski1993:131). also reportfindingsthat supportwhat Pettigrewand Meertenscall Elsewhere,researchers and the "classic"claim that racism, authoritarianism, conservatismco-vary. Indeed, Pettigrew and Meertens report several findings that, they say, "provethe force of this theory" (1993:120). Nonna Mayer inclines to a similar conclusion in connection with French ethnocentrismand antisemitism (1993). The implication, for McFarlandet al., is "that in authoritarianism, whatever culture it is found, produces strong condemnation of the culturallydefined enemies" (1993:212). "AnExtremistWave" Since Germanreunificationand the collapse of the USSR, the affinity between chimeria and chauvinismhas become very striking.This led Le Monde, for example, to warn of an "extremist wave moving across Europe"(October 1994).64Perhapsmost alarminghas been the meteoric rise of the "Red-Brown" tendency in Russia, where a motley collection of Stalinists,neo-Nazis, and traditionalRussian chauvinistshas emerged as a potent electoral force. The first proof of this was the rise of "mad Vlad" Zhirinovsky, whose "Liberal Democratic Party" produced global shock waves in late 1993 by winning more votes (22.8%)than any otherpartyin the nationalelections, thus becoming the largestopposition party in the Russian Duma. For Zhirinovsky,an open admirerof Hitler, antisemitismis a claim to fame. He enthusiasticallyrepeats most of the usual chimerical canards (blaming the Jews, e.g, for both WorldWars),and has denouncedthe IMF as "partof an international Jewish conspiracy."And, like virtually every other Russian xenophobe, he contends that Russia is ruled by Jews (see Frazerand Lancelle 1994:138-43). a The latterclaim is given specificityby AleksandrProkhanov, novelist, editorof Russia's most popularagitproptabloid, and a member of Communist leader Gennady Zyuganov's
63 The Russian discovery of the authoritarian personalityis a recent development,since underthe old Stalinist Personalitywas unavailable. regime TheAuthoritarian 64 All data below, unless otherwise specified, are from the AWR or from articles in the New YorkTimesor the Post. Washington

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF ENEMIES

231

brain trust, whose claim, endlessly repeated, is that Russian president Boris Yeltsin is secretly a Jew, "working according to a secret Jewish plan to wreck Russia" (Bivens 1996:C3).65 Zyuganov, meanwhile, soared to prominence in late 1995 when his Russian Communist Party (KPRF) won more than a third of the seats in the Duma. Winning 22.3% of the vote, almost exactly the total tallied two years earlier by Zhirinovsky, the KPRF won more votes than any other party. (Zhirinovsky's party won 11.2% to place second, ahead of Yeltsin's party.) In July 1996, in a losing campaign for the presidency, Zyuganov received 40 million votes. And he, like his adviser Prokhanov, professes the kind of chimerical Judeophobia that plays so well in Red-Brown circles. "Jewish influence grew by the hour, not by the day," Zyuganov wrote in his tract, I Believe in Russia. 'The Jewish Diaspora traditionally controlled the financial life of the [European] continent and became more and more the owner of the controlling interest in all the stocks of Western civilization and its socioeconomic system" (cited by Remnick 1996:50). The startling gains registered by Zyuganov and Zhirinovsky in Russia were matched in Austria in October 1994, when "yuppie fascist" Jorg Haider's Freedom Party (FPO, now the "F movement") won 22.6% of the national vote, scoring what Haider called a "historic breakthrough." His party, founded in 1954, is the lineal heir to Austrian National Socialism and is notorious for its ultra-right profile.66 Mixing neofascist politics with Judeophobia in the familiar way-a recent poll showed anti-Jewish feeling to be "widespread" in the F movement (AWR 1996:84)-Haider's group won 42 parliamentary seats in 1994, emerging as the third largest Austrian party (thanks largely to its popular anti-immigrant crusade).67 Haider expects to become chancellor by 1998. In Italy the party founded by Mussolini's disciples after the war entered government in early 1994 in coalition with two other parties, winning 13.5% of the total vote and sending 15 members into the cabinet. This was the first victory at the national level for neofascists anywhere in postwar Europe, and Gianfranco Fini, the youthful leader of the party, is one of the most popular Italian politicians.68 In 1995 this party had 210,000 members, 8,412 branches, 109 deputies in the lower chamber of parliament, 48 senators, 44 mayors, 750 chairs of city councils, 2,600 municipal councillors, 45 regional councillors, and 11 Members of the European Parliament (AWR 1996:155). In April 1995, Fini's new electoral "alliance" won 14.1% of the total vote. In France, the progress of reaction can be measured by the success of the Ur-party of the European far right, Jean-Marie Le Pen's Front National (Marcus 1995). Measured by that standard, French reaction is robust. In the presidential elections of April 1995, Le Pen tallied his highest vote total ever, 15.3% of the national vote.69 In Marseilles and Nice he performed as well as Zyuganov and Haider did elsewhere, winning 22.3% and 23.75% of
65 Prokhanovfirst gained notoriety for his chauvinist novels about the war in Afghanistan.With his associate AleksandrDugin, he later founded the "Day"movement and emerged as a pioneer of the Russian "New Right," modeled after the FrenchNouvelle Droite. In this phase, Prokhanovarguedthat antisemitismwas counterproductive for the right-thus taking a short-lived"differentialist" stance. Cf. Remnick(1996), AWR (1996), and Laqueur (1994). 66 As Carinthian governorin 1990, HaiderpraisedNazi laborpolicies. In September1995, he greeteda gathering of former SS members and ex-Nazis as "dearfriends."Haideroften toys with Nazi lingo (e.g., the "finalsolution to the farm question")and calls immigrants"profiteers" "parasites." or Perhapsthe wealthiestAustrianpolitician, Haider lives on a 3,800-acre estate expropriatedfrom Jews in 1938. His fatherwas a Nazi stormtrooper. 67 Warningthat street violence of the Germankind could erupt if immigrationis not halted, Haiderpredictsa "revolution" over this issue. Polls show that 76% of Austriansagree thatno more immigrantsshould enterAustria, and thereis an "atmosphere generalethnic intoleranceand openness to authoritarian of measures"in Austriatoday (AWR 1994:11). 68 Fini has moved slightly to the center recently, ambiguouslydeclaringhis newly renamedparty "postfascist." 69 This is in betterthan the 12.5% nearly 6% betterthan Le Pen's originalbreakthrough 1988, and substantially he polled in 1994. In 1994, in 66 constituencies,the FrontNational won more than 30% of the vote. If seats were awardedon the basis of the total vote, the FN would have won 64 seats of 577. In a 1991 nationalpoll, 32% of the respondentssaid they agreed with many FN positions.

232

SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY

the votes. In June, the FN scored a "breakthrough," winning mayoral races in three cities the number of FN councillors (to 992), and reaching the (including Toulon), doubling second ballot in 150 urban areas with populations over 20,000 (AWR 1996:119). A year elections. Overall, 87 earlier,the FN had scored a 10%vote in the EuropeanParliamentary French periodicals express FN views, along with 18 neo-Nazi papers, 17 "New Right" journals, five that deny the reality of the Holocaust, and roughly 50 more that purvey assortedfar-rightviews. In Belgium, the neo-Nazi Vlaams Blok is "one of the most significant"far-rightparties in Europe(AWR 1996:90). Ideological heir to the prewarfascists of the Rex Party,the VB is the largest Flemish party in Brussels, where in May 1995 it won 12.2% of the Flemish vote. Less than a year earlier, the VB had won 28% of the vote in Antwerp, thereby becoming the largest party in the second largest Belgian city. With 400 officeholdersin its ranks, the VB has representativesin the EuropeanParliament(two), at the national level (15), in the Flemish federation(16), and at lower levels. Allied with the FrancophoneFront National Belge (FNB), the VB is close to Le Pen's right wing in France,Zhirinovsky's party in Russia, and extremistgroupsin Germanyand South Africa. In 1993, the Belgian minister of defense refused to rule out a possible coalition with VB, which "expresses open admirationfor the Hitler regime and apartheid" (AWR 1994:13). In Romania a poll showed 27% support for "authoritarian, strong-armedleadership" (AWR 1994:131). This is not surprising,since in late 1992 a coalition of the main chauvinist parties vaulted into parliamentwith 15% of the national vote, gaining 84 seats. By 1994, polls showed that these parties enjoyed supportfrom 19% of the Romanianpublic. Most of this gain was registered by the electoral wing of the violently chauvinist Vatra RoA maneasca, which claims a (very dubious) six million members.70 total of four neofascist are now representedin the Romania parliament;all are stridently antisemitic. In parties 1995, Comeliu Vadim Tudor's ultra-rightPartidul Romania Mare joined the national government.With 28 mayors and 23 membersof Parliament,the PRM is now an electoral force to be reckoned with. Tudor is a notorious antisemite, who led the PRM out of the governingcoalition late in 1995, chargingthat the Iliescu regime had "sold out to the Jews" (AWR 1996:198).71Another major party went so far as to call for vengeance: "We have the right to roundup [the Jews] andjudge them severely for their odious crimes,"the party papereditorialized."Andif the wrathof the people cannotbe appeased,then the flight from Egypt is going to look like a picnic in retrospect"(cited by Hockenos 1993:280). Antisemitismand Antidemocratism An astuteobserverof the easternEuropeanscene notes that old religious and culturalbiases against the Jews are conspicuously less salient than they used to be; the new Judeophobia, he writes, "hasless to do with actualJews than it does with an abstractimage of 'the Jew"' "fromRostock (Hockenos 1993:273). And the content of this image is far from arbitrary: to Tirana,Moscow to Paris, those particularly'Jewish' qualities that the right singles out are inevitably tied to Europeanmodernity,as a ... protest against liberalism and the idea of a united Europe, against humanrights and democraticvalues" (Hockenos 1993:275). For Manichaeans,the demonic enemy personifies whateveris most reviled. For authoritarians, the ultimate enemy is whatever obstructs Caesarist rule.72That can be a "soft"
70 The total circulationof dailies, weeklies, etc., approachesone million. ultra-right 71 Tudorhas announced plans to run for president. 72I use the term "authoritarian" here with ideal-typical intent, since in reality very few people are simply "authoritarian" without some degree of ambivalence.However, many people do seem to be moved largely by authoritarian sans impulses. For simplicity I will call this group "authoritarian" qualification.

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONOF ENEMIES

233

government,a protest movement, an unruly legislature, the press, the intelligentsia, "permissiveness." Is it coincidental that the Satanic Jew of antisemiticfantasy is often a kind of composite stereotypeof all these forces? Soft yet menacing,loud but cerebral,cloistered yet orgiastic? The chimerical Jew, it seems, is all this and more: a shadow government, visible anarchy,reason, revolution-everything, that is, which conspires to shatterthe iron fist. The Mythical Jew, then, is democracydemonized.The antisemite'senemy is the authoritarian'snightmare,the democratperceived as anarchist(and personifiedas Antichrist).This is why the mythopoesis of anti-Jewish chimeria has special appeal for antidemocrats. Democraticopponentsare eternallypresent in potentia. 'The Jew,"as mastermetaphorfor this eternal enemy, can never be destroyed,no matterwhat happens to actual Jews. Every current can be subsumed under the rubric "Jewish."In Richard new antiauthoritarian the Jews are "plasticdemons,"ever mutableand forever evil.73 Wagner'sphrase, Since authoritycan always be questioned, "Jews"can never disappear.This, it seems, is the metaphysicaldeduction of the Manichaeanunconscious. This is not to say, however,thatdemocracyis the only force demonizedby the antisemite. realm of psychic equivalences, "the Jew" is a very On the contrary,in the subterranean are demon indeed. Authoritarians upset by democracy in particularas a levelling plastic that negates or limits the "naturalhierarchies"they an "abstract" force, egalitarianism revere-crown and subject,patricianand plebeian, husbandand wife, fatherand child. But which calls custom into question; other forces also weaken traditionalhierarchy:"reason," with its challenge to the very notion of inequality; capitalism, for "humanitarianism," upsetting the old order of class inequities; socialism, for opposing the new orderof class inequities;pacifism, for puttingpower politics under a moral cloud; feminism, for fighting for and "cosmopolitanism," weakening patriotism.74 patriarchy; for authoritarians. These forces are terrifying They see not the professed good will and its power to atomize and profaneestablishedcodes of humanismof democracy,but, rather, superiorityand servility. This is one reason why they so often oppose ruling parties that For they see as both "weak"and "terroristic." partisansof centralauthority,democratsare terroristicprecisely because they forcibly decentralizepower. "Softening"authoritylevels in hierarchy.For authoritarians, other words, the "soft"rule of the majority tyrannically wish for a tyrant.This may be paradox,but its psychological force is great.75 suppressesthe the In a similar spirit, revolutionaryconservativesseek to "prove" evil of reason, which is unreasonable(Dahl 1996; cf. Kolnai 1938). All thatis needed, they know, in their hearts, then, is to equate Jews with reason, with democracy,and Manichaeanantisemitismsprings to life, fully formed. The Jews, in this vision, are the plastic unity of all the antisemite's inner demons. They unite a plethoraof fears into a single specter, serving, as Zizek well explains (1996, 1993, 1991, 1989), as a kind of "quiltingpoint"(cf. Lacan [1956] 1993).76 J.-P. Dupuy puts the logic of this point in a different language (and without reference to
73 See Erich Goldhagen (1978, n. 6). 74 For reasons of space I cannot analyze the equationof Jews to capital in this paper,but I want to emphasize on that I believe this a major aspect of the problem. Thus far, the single best contribution this subject is that of Postone (1986). And Wilson's social history of the Dreyfus Affair (1982) offers a wealth of relevantdata. 75 It is not true that authoritarians mechanically favor whatever authoritythey encounter.On the contrary, authoritarians utopianswho wish for Leadersof impossible, ultra-paternal are strength.They do not automatically favor"formal-rational" authoritysimply because it exists; instead,they thirstfor GreatLeaders,whethertraditional, in charismatic,or-in the best of both worlds-charismatic in form but traditional essence. They long for a strong hand, not a governmentthat surrendersto the "invisiblehand"of the market. 76 Berger and Luckmannmake a related point when they note that "some roles have no function other than of this symbolic representation the institutionalorder as an integratedtotality"([1966] 1973:121). The pertinence of this comment is clear not only vis-a-vis the Jews of myth but also, as ethnologistshave often shown, vis-a-vis "divinekings" and chiefs.

234

THEORY SOCIOLOGICAL

the Jews) when he analyzes the leader as an "endogenousfixed point, produced by the crowd while the crowd imagines itself to be its product."The chimeric leader, or enemy, "is not a cause, it is an effect: a systemic effect,"reflectingthe group's"self-externalization" (Dupuy 1990:120). And this self-externalization,Zizek would add, is self-constituting. Manichaeanantisemites find an identity in their unity as Anti-Jews. They are the living antithesisof the Jew, revolving like planets arounda radiantmyth.77 It should be clear, in this context, that since the authoritarian's enemies, visible or invisible, can always be personifiedas Jews, real Jews are unnecessaryto promptor sustain this worldview.Mythic Jews serve as an explanatorymasterkey for Manichaeanswhether real Jews are present or not. Hence the decisive issue is not the presence of Jews, but the presenceof antisemites."Ifthe Jew did not exist," as Sartrefamously wrote, "theantisemite would have to invent him" (1948:10).78In a sense, this appears to be what has, in fact, happened.In Japan,Romania,and Slovakiatoday,a distantecho of Jewish historyhas taken on transcendental in Manichaeanmyth.79 life Criticsof this perspectiveoften note thatJews are less directlymenacedby ethnic bigotry thanother,more visible minorities.In Russia, Azeris and other so-called "chernye" (Blacks) are in greaterdanger;in Germany,Turks and Vietnamese are assaulted;in France, North Africansare at risk; in Austria,migrantSlovenianlaborers;in Romania,ethnic Hungarians; in Iran,Kurdsand Baha'ibelievers;and so on. The truthof this point is plain. It should be recalled, however, that antisemitism tends to correlate strongly with bias against other outgroups. Hence it is poor consolation for Jews to learn that the bigots who violently assaultAzeris, Turks,Sinti, Roma, and Maghrebsprobablyhate them too. And the fact that Jews are injuredless often than Turksor Roma does not contradictthe claim that Judeophobia grows and prospers. On the contrary,it is perfectly possible for antisemitism to flourish while Jews are left comparativelyundisturbed.Chimerias differ from ordinary prejudice.They revolve aroundimaginaryenemies, who can be fantasmically annihilated. As we have seen, actualJews, whetherliving or dead, are beside the point for chimeria. In a sense, only mythic Jews count. This perspective also helps us understandwhy the denial of the Holocaust is now so common among antisemites. The Elders of Zion are simply more real to chimerical antisemitesthan the Jewish millions who died in Auschwitz, Dachau and Treblinka.Jews seem imperishablyoccult, as nebulous as they are nefarious-a ghostly dispersed people that cannotbe annihilatedby ordinaryphysical means. For many,this is the "lesson"of the Holocaust.80 It seems unlikely that, in the post-Holocaust era, there will be a second edition of the Final Solution.Jews, however,will neverbe safe as long as they personifyprincipleshateful to authoritarians. And that, unhappily,is something wholly beyond their control. Antisemitesoppose reason and democracy,not just a people or culture.And no one group is uniquely "chosen"to resist.

77 Zizek's work, to date, has referredto antisemitismglancingly, as an illustrationof other claims. It would be interestingto see him make "the Jew as quilting point"the object of a more extended discussion. 78 Sartre, interestingly,was not the first to formulate this famous aphorism. In Der Antisemitismus(1894), playwrightHermannBahr wrote that "If there were no Jews the anti-Semites would have to invent them" (cited in Massing 1949:99). 79 This is perhaps clearest in Japan, where Jews are little more than rumors. "A country containing no more than 1,000 Jews,"JenniferGolub writes, "one that is neithera Christiannor Muslim society, should not-logically (1992:1). This is, however, "logical"only if we assume that antisemitismactually speaking-have antisemitism" requiresthe existence of Jews. In Japan,as in many other places, this assumptionclearly is not tenable. 80 It is also relevantto note thatJews often are implicitly attackedin battles that explicitly involve others.When Romanianchauvinists,for example, attackethnic Hungarians,they often say-and seem to believe-that they are, in fact, strikinga blow against the "Judeo-Hungarian conspiracy."

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONOF ENEMIES REFERENCES

235

Abbreviation AWR-Antisemitism WorldReport, edited by Antony Lerman, with Juliet J. Pope, Julia Sch6pflin, and Howard Spier. London: Instituteof Jewish Affairs. Published annuallysince 1992. Adorno, Theodor W. 1950. "QualitativeStudies of Ideology."Pp. 605-786 in The Authoritarian Personality,by T.W. Adorno et al. New York:Harper& Brothers. New York:Continuum. Adorno, Theodor W. and Max Horkheimer.[1947] 1972. Dialectic of Enlightenment. and Adorno, TheodorW., Daniel J. Levinson, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, R. Nevitt Sanford. 1950. TheAuthoritarian Personality.New York:Harper& Brothers. Aho, James. 1994. This Thing of Darkness: A Sociology of the Enemy.Seattle: University of WashingtonPress. New York:Meridian. Arendt, Hannah. [1951] 1968. The Origins of Totalitarianism. Aschheim, Steven E. 1982. Brothersand Strangers.Madison:Universityof Wisconsin Press. School." German Studies Review 1:125-138. Bahr, Ehrhard.1978.'The Anti-SemitismStudies of the Frankfurt Baldwin, Peter M. 1982. "Zionistand Non-Zionist Jews in the Last Years before the Nazi Regime."Leo Baeck InstituteYearbook27:87-108. Barkun,Michael. 1994. Religion and the Racist Right. Chapel Hill: Universityof North CarolinaPress. Bauer,Bruno. [1843] 1978. 'The Capacityof PresentDay Jews and Christiansto Become Free."ThePhilosophical Forum 8:135-149. Bauman, Zygmunt. 1991. Modernityand the Holocaust. Ithaca:Cornell UniversityPress. Benz, Wolfgang. 1993. 'Traditional and Rediscovered Prejudices in the New Europe."Patterns of Prejudice 27:3-13. Berger, Peter L. and Thomas Luckmann.[1966] 1973. The Social Constructionof Reality. London:Penguin. Bergmann, Werner. 1988. "Approachesto Anti-Semitism Based on Psychodynamics and PersonalityTheory." Pp. 9-34 in Error WithoutTrial:Psychological Research on Antisemitism,edited by WernerBergmann.Berlin and New York:Walterde Gruyter. Bernstein, Herman. [1935] 1971. The Truthabout 'The Protocols of Zion"' A Complete Exposure.New York: Ktav. Best, Joel. 1993. "But Seriously Folks." Pp. 129-147 in ReconsideringSocial Constructionism, edited by James A. Holstein and Gale Miller. Hawthorne,NY: Aldine De Gruyter. Bivens, Matt. 1996. "FourContendersWho Wait for Yeltsin to Fall." The San Francisco Chronicle,August 15. Blanchot,Maurice. [1987] 1989. 'Thinking the Apocalypse:A Letterfrom MauriceBlanchotto CatherineDavid." Critical Inquiry 15:475-480. Bock, Gisela. 1994. "Antinatalism, Maternityand Paternityin National Socialist Racism."Pp. 110-140 in Nazism and GermanSociety, 1933-1945, edited by David F. Crew. London:Routledge. Bompiani, Ginevra. 1989. 'The ChimeraHerself." Pp. 369-409 in Fragmentsfor a History of the HumanBody, Vol. 1, edited by Michel Feher, RamonaNaddaff, and Nadia Tazi. New York:Zone. MA: Boyer, Paul. 1992. WhenTimeShall Be No More: ProphecyBelief in ModernAmericanCulture.Cambridge, HarvardUniversity Press. Brown, J.F. 1942. 'The Origin of the Anti-Semitic Attitude."Pp. 124-148 in Jews in a Gentile World,edited by Isacque Graeberand SteuartHendersonBritt. New York:Macmillan. Brym, Robert J. 1996. "RussianAttitudesTowardsJews: An Update."East EuropeanJewish Affairs26:55-64. Brym, Robert J. and Andrei Degtyarev. 1993. "Anti-Semitismin Moscow."Slavic Review 52:1-12. Butorova,Zora and MartinButora. 1992. "WarinessTowardsJews as an Expression of Post-Communist Panic." CzechoslovakSociological Review 28 (August):92-107. Cala, Alina. 1993. "Antisemitismin Poland Today."Patterns of Prejudice 27:121-126 Celine, Louis-Ferdinand.1937. Bagatelles pour un massacre. Paris: Denoel. Chalk, Frank and Kurt Jonassohn. 1990. 'The ConceptualFramework." 3-56 in The History and Sociology Pp. of Genocide, edited by FrankChalk and KurtJonassohn.New Haven: Yale UniversityPress. Amherst:Universityof MassachusettsPress. Charm6,StuartZane. 1991. Vulgarityand Authenticity. of Chase, Cynthia. 1989. '"Trappings an Education."Pp. 44-79 in Responses: On Paul de Man's Wartime Journalism, edited by WernerHamacher,Neil Hertz, and Thomas Keenan. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Chaucer, Geoffrey. 1949. 'The CanterburyTales." Pp. 61-496 in The Portable Chaucer, edited by Theodore Morrison.New York:The Viking Press. Paris: Les Editions du Cerf. Chevalier,Yves. 1988. L'Antisemitisme. Chretien,Jean-Pierreet al. 1995. "Un racisme antihamitique." 139-208 in Rwanda: Les medias du genocide Pp. by J.-P. Chr6tien, Jean Francois Dupaquier, Marcel Kabanda, and Joseph Ngarambe, with Reporters san frontieres.Paris: Karthala.

236

SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY

Cohen, Jeremy. 1982. The Friars and the Jews. Ithaca:Cornell University Press. and Cohn, Norman. [1966] 1981. Warrant Genocide: The Myth of the Jewish World-Conspiracy the Protocols for of the Elders of Zion. Chico, CA: Scholars Press. und die Frankfurter Schule. Dusseldorf: Droste-Verlag. Cramer,Erich. 1979. Hitlers Antisemitismus Culler,Jonathan.1989. "'Paul de Man's War'and the Aesthetic Ideology."Critical Inquiry 15:777-783. Dahl, Goran. 1996. 'The Anti-ReflexivistRevolution"(manuscript). Universityof Lund, Departmentof Sociology. De Man, Paul. [1966] 1989. 'The Literatureof Nihilism." Pp. 161-170 in Paul de Man: Critical Writings, 1953-1978, edited by Lindsay Waters.Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press. .1986. The Resistance to Theory.Minneapolis:Universityof Minnesota Press. Dees, Morris, with James Corcoran.1996. GatheringStorm.New York:HarperCollins. Delacampagne,Christian.1990. "Racismand the West."Pp. 83-88 in Anatomyof Racism, edited by David Theo Goldberg.Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press. zum Neorassismus."Pp. 21-54 in Aspekteder Fremdenfeindlichkeit, edited Demirovic,Alex. 1992. "VomVorurteil and New York:CampusVerlag. by the Institutfur Sozialforschung.Frankfurt Derrida,Jacques. 1989. "Like the Sound of the Sea Deep Within a Shell." Pp. 127-164 in Responses: On Paul de Man'sWartime Neil Hertz,andThomasKeenan.Lincoln:University Journalism,editedby WernerHamacher, of NebraskaPress. .1990. "Heidegger's Silence."Pp. 145-148 in MartinHeidegger and National Socialism, edited by Ginther Neske and Emil Kettering.New York:ParagonHouse. Du Bois, W.E.B. [1903] 1989. The Souls of Black Folk. New York:Penguin. Dundes, Alan, ed. 1991. The Blood Libel Legend. Madison:University of Wisconsin Press. Deconstruction." Dupuy, Jean-Pierre.1990. "Deconstructing StanfordLiteratureReview 7:101-121 Durkheim,Emile. [1897] 1952. Suicide. London:Routledge & Kegan Paul. [1912] 1995. The ElementaryForms of Religious Life. New York:Free Press. Jewish Social Studies 11:185-187. Eppstein,Victor. 1949. "Review of J.-P. Sartre." Ezekiel, Raphael. 1995. The Racist Mind. New York:Viking. Fahey, Rev. Denis. 1935. The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World.Dublin: Browne & Nolan. Farias,Victor. [1987] 1989. Heidegger and Nazism. Philadelphia:Temple University Press. Fein, Helen. 1987a. "Explanationsof the Origin and Evolution of Antisemitism."Pp. 3-22 in The Persisting Question:Sociological Perspectivesand Social Contextsof ModernAntisemitism,edited by Helen Fein. Berlin and New York:Walterde Gruyter. .1987b. "Dimensionsof Antisemitism."Pp. 67-85 in The Persisting Question: Sociological Perspectives and Social Contextsof ModernAntisemitism,edited by Helen Fein. Berlin and New York:Walterde Gruyter. Fenichel, Otto. [1940] 1946. "Elementsof a PsychoanalyticTheory of Anti-Semitism."Pp. 11-32 in Anti-Semitism: A Social Disease, edited by Ernst Simmel. New York:International Universities Press. Alain. [1980] 1994. The ImaginaryJew. Lincoln: Universityof NebraskaPress. Finkielkraut, Fischer, Louis. 1941. Men and Politics. New York:Duell, Sloan and Pearce. In Ford, Glyn. 1991. "Introduction." Fascist Europe: The Rise of Racism and Xenophobia.London and Boulder: Photo Press. New York:Penguin. Frazer,Grahamand George Lancelle. 1994. Absolute Zhirinovsky. Frenkel-Brunswik,Else and R. Nevitt Sanford. [1945] 1988. "Some Personality Factors in Anti-Semitism." Trial:Psychological Researchon Antisemitism, editedby WernerBergmann.Berlin Pp. 98-118 in ErrorWithout and New York:Walterde Gruyter. Freud, Sigmund. [1896] 1963. "FurtherRemarks on the Defence Neuro-psychoses."Pp. 151-174 in Sigmund Freud,Early PsychoanalyticWritings.New York:Collier. Saul. 1971. L'antisemitisme Nazi. Paris: Editions du Seuil. Friedlander, for Fullerton,Maryellen. 1995. "Germany Germans":Xenophobia and Racist Violence in Germany.New York: HumanRights Watch/Helsinki. Gabel, Joseph. 1975. False Consciousness. Oxford:Basil Blackwell. .1987. Reflexionssur lAvenir des Juifs. Paris:Meridiens Klincksieck. Gasche, Rodolphe. 1986. The Tain of the Mirror: Derrida and the Philosophy of Reflection. Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversityPress. Gerber, David A. 1986. "Anti-Semitism and Jewish-Gentile Relations in American Historiographyand the American Past."Pp. 3-56 in Anti-Semitismin American History, edited by David Gerber.Urbana:University of Illinois Press. Goldhagen,Daniel Jonah. 1996. Hitler's WillingExecutioners:OrdinaryGermansand the Holocaust. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Goldhagen,Erich. 1978. "Obsessionand Realpolitikin the Final Solution."Patterns of Prejudice 12:1-16. .1979. The Mind and Spirit of East European Jewry During the Holocaust: The Beiner-CitrinLecture. Cambridge,MA: The HarvardCollege Library.

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF ENEMIES

237

Goldsmith,Emanuel S. 1994. 'The Educationof Maurice Samuel."Pp. 228-246 in The "Other"New York Jewish Intellectuals,edited by Carole S. Kessner.New York:New YorkUniversityPress. Golub, Jennifer.1992. Japanese AttitudesTowardJews. New York:Pacific Rim Instituteof the AmericanJewish Committee. in Goodman,David G. 1996. "Antisemitismin Japan," The Constructionof Racial Identitiesin Chinaand Japan, edited by FrankDikotter (forthcoming). Goodman,David and MasanoriMiyazawa. 1995. Jews in the Japanese Mind: The History and Uses of a Cultural Stereotype.New York:Free Press. Goux, Jean-Joseph.1989. "Politics and Modem Art: Heidegger'sDilemma."Diacritics 19:10-24. Gudkov,Lev D. and Alex G. Levinson. 1992. Attitudes TowardJews in the Soviet Union. New York:American Jewish Committee. Guillaumin,Colette. 1972. L'ideologie raciste. Paris and The Hague: Mouton. Journal of PhenomenologicalPsychology 4:297-313. Hannush,Mufid J. 1973. "Adomo and Sartre." Vittorio Heidegger, Martin. [1942] 1984. Holderlin's Hymne "Der Ister": Gesamtausgabe,Bd. 53. Frankfurt: Klosterman. Heise, David R. 1988. "Delusions and the Constructionof Reality."Pp. 259-272 in Delusional Beliefs, edited by Thomas F. Oltmannsand BrendanA. Maher.New York:John Wiley & Sons. Hertzberg,Arthur.1960. "Introduction." 15-99 in The Zionist Idea, edited by ArthurHertzberg.New York: Pp. MeridianBooks. .1993. "Is Anti-SemitismDying Out?"The New York Review of Books, June 24:51-57. Herzl, Theodor. [1896] 1943. The Jewish State. New York:Scopus. Hitler,Adolf. [1925] 1943. Mein Kampf Boston: HoughtonMifflin. Hockenos, Paul. 1993. Free to Hate. London: Routledge. Horkheimer,Max. [1936] 1993. "Egoism and Freedom Movements."Pp. 49-110 in Max Horkheimer, Between Philosophy and Social Science. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press. . 1950. "Preface." ix-xii in The Authoritarian Pp. Personality,by T.W.Adorno et al. New York:Harper& Brothers. Horkheimer,Max, Theodor W. Adorno, and associates. [1956] 1972. Aspects of Sociology. Boston: Beacon. Hsia, R. Po-chia. 1988. The Myth of Ritual Murder New Haven: Yale UniversityPress. Constituentsof Moral Discourse." Pp. 25-40 in ReconIbarra,Peter R. and John I. Kitsuse. 1993. "Vernacular sidering Social Constructionism,edited by James A. Holstein and Gale Miller. Hawthorne,NY: Aldine de Gruyter. Irvine, William D. 1989. The Boulanger Affair Reconsidered.New York and Oxford:Oxford UniversityPress. Jacoby, Russell. 1983. The Repression of Psychoanalysis. New York:Basic Books. Jay, Martin. 1980. 'The Jews and the FrankfurtSchool." New German Critique 19:137-149. Jenkins, Philip. 1992. IntimateEnemies. Hawthorne,NY: Aldine de Gruyter. Kaplan,David E. and Andrew Marshall. 1996. The Cult at the End of the World.New York:Crown. Kaplan, Jeffrey. 1995. "RightWing Violence in North America."Pp. 44-95 in Terror from the ExtremeRight, edited by Tore Bj0rgo. London:FrankCass. Klein, Dennis. 1985. Jewish Origins of the PsychoanalyticMovement.Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press. Kolnai, Aurel. 1938. The WarAgainst the West.New York:The Viking Press. Kristeva,Julia. 1990. "'Oursto Jew or Die': Celine and the Categoriesof Anti-Semitism." 171-182 in Anatomy Pp. of Racism, edited by David Theo Goldberg.Minneapolis:University of MinnesotaPress. Krzeminski,Ireneusz. 1993. "Antisemitismin Today'sPoland."Patterns of Prejudice 27:127-135. Lacan, Jacques. [1956] 1993. 'The QuiltingPoint."Pp. 258-270 in The Seminarof Jacques Lacan, Book III, The Psychoses 1955-1956, edited by Jacques-AlainMiller. New York and London:W.W.Norton. Lacoue-Labarthe, Philippe. 1990. Heidegger,Art and Politics: The Fiction of the Political. Oxfordand Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell. (Firstpublishedas La Fiction du politique: Heidegger,I'artet la politique.Paris:Christian Bourgois, 1987.) Lacoue-Labarthe, Philippe and Jean-LucNancy. [1980] 1991. Le mythe nazi. Paris:Editions de l'Aube. Lacoue-Labarthe, Philippe and Jean-LucNancy, eds. 1981. Rejouer le politique. Paris:EditionsGalilee. 1983. Le retrait du politique. Paris: Editions Galilee. 1985. Le faculte' de juger. Paris: Les Editions de Minuit. Langmuir,Gavin I. 1972. 'The Knight'sTale of Young Hugh of Lincoln."Speculum47:459-482. .1975. "Qu'est-ceque 'les juifs' signifiaientpour la soci6t6 m6di6vale?" Pp. 179-190 in Ni juif ni grec: entretienssur le racisme, edited by Leon Poliakov. Paris and The Hague: Mouton. .1976. "Prolegomenato any present analysis of hostility against Jews." Social Science Information 15:689-727. .1977. "L'absenced'accusationde meurtre rituel a l'ouest du Rh6ne." Cahiers de Fanjeaux 12:235249.

238

SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY

. 1980 "MedievalAnti-Semitism."Pp. 27-36 in The Holocaust: Ideology, Bureaucracy, and Genocide, edited by Sybil Milton and Henry Friedlander. Millwood, NY: Kraus International. . 1984. 'Thomas of Monmouth:Detector of Ritual Murder." Speculum59:820-846. . 1987. 'Toward a Definition of Antisemitism."Pp. 86-127 in The Persisting Question: Sociological Perspectivesand Social Contextsof ModernAntisemitism,edited by Helen Fein. Berlin and New York:Walter de Gruyter. 1990a. History,Religion, and Antisemitism.Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress. . 1990b. TowardA Definitionof Antisemitism.Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress. Laqueur,Walter.1994. Black Hundred:The Rise of the ExtremeRight in Russia. New York:HarperPerennial. Lazare,Bernard.[1894] 1903. Antisemitism,Its History and Causes. New York:International LibraryPublishing Company. Lerman,Antony. 1993. "Antisemitismand Racism in EuropeToday."Patterns of Prejudice 27:25-29. Levinson, Daniel J. 1950. 'The Study of Anti-SemiticIdeology."Pp. 57-101 in The Authoritarian Personality,by T.W. Adorno et al. New York:Harper& Brothers. Loeb, Isidore. 1889. "Un M6moirede LaurentGanganellisur La Calomniedue MeurtreRituel."Revue des etudes juives 18:179-185. UniversitiesPress. Loewenstein,RudolphM. 1951. Christiansand Jews. New York:International jews. " Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press. Lyotard,Jean-Francois.1990. Heidegger and "the Mansurov,ValeryA. 1993. 'The 1993 Russian Citizens'Opinion Poll Results."Pp. 145-170 in The Future of the MomentBefore, edited by Alberto Gasparini.Gorizia:Instituteof International Sociology. Marcus, Jonathan.1995. The National Front and French Politics. New York:New YorkUniversity Press. Marks, Elaine. 1972. 'The Limits of Ideology and Sensibility."French Review 45:779-788. Marrus,Michael R. 1971. The Politics of Assimilation.Oxford:The ClarendonPress. Massing, Paul W. 1949. Rehearsalfor Destruction. New York:Harper& Brothers. Pp. Mayer, Carl. 1942. "Religious and Political Aspects of Anti-Judaism." 311-328 in Jews in a Gentile World, edited by Isacque Graeberand SteuartHendersonBritt. New York:Macmillan. francais a l'aune des sondages." Pp. 278-288 in Racisme et modernite, Mayer, Nonna. 1993. "L'antis6mitisme edited by Michel Wieviorka.Paris:D6couverte. McFarland,Sam, Vladimir Ageyev, and Marina Abalakina. 1993. 'The Authoritarian Personality in the United States and the FormerSoviet Union."Pp. 199-228 in Strengthand Weakness,edited by WilliamF. Stone, Gerda Ledererand RichardChristie.New York and Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Megill, Allan. 1985. Prophets of Extremity.Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress. Miller, J. Hillis. 1989. "An Open Letterto ProfessorJon Wiener."Pp. 334-342 in Responses: On Paul de Man's WartimeJournalism, edited by WernerHamacher,Neil Hertz, and Thomas Keenan. Lincoln: University of NebraskaPress. Moore, R.I. 1987. The Formationof a PersecutingSociety. Oxford:Basil Blackwell. Morin, Edgar.[1969] 1971. "Synthesis." 9-138 in Rumourin Orleans by EdgarMorin, with BernardPaillard, Pp. Evelyne Burguiere,Claude Capulier,Suzanne de Lusignan,and Julia Verone.New York:Pantheon. Mudde, Cas. 1995. "One against All, All against one! A Portraitof the Vlaams Blok." Patterns of Prejudice 29:5-28. Nancy, Jean-Luc. 1990. "OurHistory."Diacritics 20:96-115. Neumann,Franz. 1944. Behemoth,expanded second edition. New York:Oxford University Press. Nietzsche, Friedrich.[1887] 1966. The Genealogy of Morals. Pp. 439-602 in Basic Writingsof Nietzsche, edited by WalterKaufmann.New York:Modern Library. Omaar,Rakiyaand Alex de Waal. 1995. Rwanda:Death, Despair and Defiance, expandedsecond edition. London: African Rights. Ostow, Mortimer.1996. Myth and Madness. New Brunswick,NJ: Transaction. Ozick, Cynthia. 1977. "Foreword." xv-xxxii in The Worldsof Maurice Samuel, edited by Milton Hindus. Pp. Jewish PublicationsSociety of America. Philadelphia: Patri,Aime. 1948. "Surla Question Juive."La TableRond 11:138. Pelinka, Anton. 1993. "DismantlingTaboos."Patterns of Prejudice 27:39-48. Pettigrew,Thomas and Roel W. Meertens. 1993. "Le racisme voile." Pp. 109-126 in Racisme et modernite,edited by Michel Wieviorka.Paris:Decouverte. Peukert, Detlev J. K. 1994. 'The Genesis of the 'Final Solution' from the Spirit of Science." Pp. 274-299 in Nazism and GermanSociety, 1933-1945, edited by David F. Crew. London: Routledge. Poliakov,L6on. [1951] 1974. Harvest of Hate. Westport,CT: GreenwoodPress. 1980. La causalite'diabolique. Paris: Calman-L6vy. est-il un racisme?" Pp. 82-84 in Racisme et modernite, edited by Michel 1993. "L'antis6mitisme Wieviorka.Paris:Decouverte. Pollner, Melvin. 1993. 'The Reflexivity of Constructionismand Constructionof Reflexivity."Pp. 199-211 in

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF ENEMIES

239

edited by James A. Holstein and Gale Miller. Hawthorne,NY: Aldine Reconsidering Social Constructionism, de Gruyter. Popov, Nikolai P. 1992. "PoliticalViews of the RussianPeople."InternationalJournal of Public OpinionResearch 4:321-334. .1995. TheRussianPeople Speak:Democracyat the Crossroads.Syracuse,NY: SyracuseUniversityPress. Postone, Moishe. 1980. "Anti-Semitismand National Socialism: Notes on the GermanReaction to 'Holocaust'." New German Critique 19:97-116. .1986. "Anti-Semitismand National Socialism."Pp. 302-314 in Germansand Jews since the Holocaust, edited by Anson Rabinbachand Jack Zipes. New York and London:Holmes & Meier. Quinley, Harold E. and Charles Y. Glock. 1979. Anti-Semitismin America. New York:Free Press. Rabi <pseudonym>. 1947. "Sartre,Portraitd'un Philos6mite."Esprit 15:532-546. Ragins, Sanford. 1980. Jewish Responses to Anti-Semitismin Germany,1870-1914. Cincinnati:Hebrew Union College Press. Rathenau,Walter.[1897] 1981. "Hore,Israel!"Pp. 89-93 in WalterRathenau,Schriften,second edition. Berlin: Berlin Verlag. Reich, Wilhelm. [1948] 1975. Listen, Little Man! New York:Farrar, Straus,and Giroux. Reichmann,Eva G. 1974. "Max Horkheimerthe Jew."Leo Baeck InstituteYearbook19:181-195. Remnick, David. 1996. "Hammer,Sickle, and Book." The New York Review of Books, May 23:45-51. Rosenberg, Harold. [1944] 1973. "Man as Anti-Semite." Pp. 241-244 in Harold Rosenberg, Discovering the Present. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1949. "Does the Jew Exist?" Commentary 7:8-18. [1966] 1973. "Is There a Jewish Art?" Pp. 223-231 in Harold Rosenberg, Discovering the Present. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Rubin, Theodore Isaac. 1990. Anti-Semitism. New York:Continuum. Samuel, Maurice. 1924. YouGentiles. New York:Harcourt,Brace. 1932. Jews on Approval.New York:Liveright. [1940] 1988. The Great Hatred. Lanham,MD: University Press of America. Sartre,Jean-Paul.1948. Anti-Semiteand Jew. New York:Schocken. (Firstpublishedas Reflexionssur la question juive. Paris: Paul Morihien, 1946.) Scheler, Max. [1912] 1961. Ressentiment.Glencoe, IL: Free Press. .1917. Die Ursachen des Deutschenhasses. Leipzig: KurtWolff. Selznick, Gertudeand Stephen Steinberg. 1969. The Tenacityof Prejudice.New York:Harper. Silbermann,Alphons. 1981. Der ungeliebte Jude: Zur Soziologie des Antisemitismus. Zurich:Interfrom. A Simmel, Ernst, ed. 1946. Anti-Semitism: Social Disease. New York:International UniversitiesPress. Simon, Stephanie. 1992. "SurveyFinds Anti-Semitismon Rise in Ex-Soviet Lands."Los Angeles Times,June 12. Smith, David Norman. 1988. "Authorities,Deities, and Commodities."Ph.D. dissertation,Universityof Wisconsin-Madison. 1992. 'The Beloved Dictator."CurrentPerspectives in Social Theory 11:195-230. 1994. "AmbiguousLegacy: Fascism and the Social Sciences." Sociological Inquiry64:456-467. 1995a. 'The Genesis of Genocide in Rwanda."Humanityand Society 19:57-74. 1995b. "Uncivil Society: 'Race' and Murderin Nazi Germany." Patternsof Prejudice 29:123-126. 1996. "Post-ColonialGenocide,"in The ComingAge of Scarcity:PreventingMass Death and Genocide in the 21st Century,edited by Isidor Wallimannand Michael Dobkowski. Syracuse:SyracuseUniversityPress (in press). .1997. "Judeophobia, Myth, and Critique."Pp. 119-150 in The Seductivenessof Jewish Myth, edited by S. Daniel Breslauer.Albany: SUNY Press, forthcoming. in Sprinzak,Ehud. 1995. "RightWing Terrorism a Comparative the Perspective." 17-43 in Terrorfrom Extreme Pp. Right, edited by Tore Bj0rgo. London:FrankCass. Ster, Kenneth S. 1996. A Force Upon the Plain. New York:Simon & Schuster. Suleiman, Susan Rubin. 1996. 'The Jew in Jean-PaulSartre'sRfilexions sur la questionjuive." Pp. 201-218 in The Jew in the Text,edited by Linda Nochlin and TamarGarb.London:Thames and Hudson. Sungolowsky,Joseph. 1962/1963. "Criticismof Anti-Semiteand Jew."YaleFrench Studies 30:68-72. Taguieff, Pierre-Andre.1988. La force du prejuge'.Paris: D6couverte. .1992. Les Protocoles des Sages de Sion, Tome lere: introduction l'etude des Protocoles unfaux et ses a usages dans le siecle. Paris: Berg. .1993-94. "FromRace to Culture."Telos 98-99:99-126. ed. Taguieff,Pierre-Andre, 1992. Les Protocoles des Sages de Sion, Tome 2eme:etudes et documents.Paris:Berg. Thomas, W.I. and Dorothy Swaine Thomas. 1928. The Child in America. New York:A.A. Knopf. Troyer,Ronald J. 1993. "RevisedSocial Constructionism." 121-133 in ReconsideringSocial Constructionism, Pp. edited by James A. Holstein and Gale Miller. Hawthorne,NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

240

SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY

23:25-46. Volkov, Shulamit. 1978. "Antisemitismas a CulturalCode," in Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook Jack. 1987. Unwelcome Strangers: East European Jews in Imperial Germany.New York: Oxford Wertheimer, UniversityPress. Wieviorka,Michel. [1991] 1995. The Arena of Racism. London: Sage. 1991a. L'Espace du racisme. Paris: Editions du Seuil. 1991b. "L'expansiondu racisme populaire."Pp. 73-82 in Face au racisme, Tome 2eme, edited by Pierre-Andr6 Taguieff. Paris:D6couverte. 1993. "Racismand Modernityin Present-DayEurope."Thesis Eleven 35:51-61. Wilson, Stephen. 1982. Ideology and Experience:Antisemitismin France at the Timeof the DreyfusAffair.London and Toronto:Associated UniversityPresses. Wistrich,Robert S. 1982. Socialism and the Jews. London and Toronto:Associated University Presses. Wolin, Richard. 1990. The Politics of Being. New York:ColumbiaUniversity Press. Yadlin, Rivka. 1989. An ArrogantOppressiveSpirit. Oxford: PergamonPress. Young-Bruehl,Elisabeth. 1996. The Anatomyof Prejudices. Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversity Press. Michael E. 1990. Heidegger's Confrontation with Modernity.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress. Zimmerman, Zizek, Slavoj. 1989. The Sublime Object of Ideology. London: Verso. 1991. For TheyKnow Not What TheyDo. London:Verso. 1993. Tarryingwith the Negative. Durham:Duke University Press. 1996. "InvisibleIdeology."Journal of Political Ideologies 1:15-32.