FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2022974974> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2022974974 endingPage "61" @default.
• W2022974974 startingPage "39" @default.
• W2022974974 abstract "George Eliot and the Jewish Question Amanda Anderson (bio) The Jewish Question interrogates the limits of modernity. The tradition of debate on the topic, extending out of Enlightenment thought, left Hegelianism, and the varied itineraries of European nationalism, typically asks whether and how the particularity of the Jew might be assimilated to, or alternately accommodated by, a project conceived as modern in its pretensions to universality. Beginning with the era of the Enlightenment, the struggles for political emancipation of the Jews acutely raised the question of how desirable or possible it would be for Jewish communities and individuals to resist a fuller cultural assimilation into Christian states or predominantly Christian societies. For example, the Jewish Enlightenment thinker Moses Mendelsson, an early writer on the topic who also actively campaigned for Jewish rights, sought to reconcile Judaism to the project of universal reason, yet simultaneously resisted the common Enlightenment view that humanity in general should take precedence over any assertion of Jewish particularism or guarding of Jewish tradition. By contrast, many nineteenth- and twentieth-century socialist writings on the Jewish Question framed the issue in strongly assimilationist terms, rearticulating the universalist Enlightenment view within the radically emancipatory framework of international class struggle. Different still were the nationalist arguments for assimilation, as evidenced in the sociological theories of Max Weber, whose understanding of modernity entailed a commitment to unified national culture. Weber’s position applies the rhetoric of assimilation to the level of the nation, arguing that recalcitrant Jewish traditionalism within Christian states will impede the modern nationalist project. 1 One lesser known but important voice in the history of the Jewish Question was Leopold Zunz, a Jewish-German historian and co-founder in 1819 of the short-lived Verein für die Kultur und Wissenschaft der Juden in Berlin. This organization, which counted the later Christian convert Heinrich Heine among its members, rejected both the Enlightenment absorption of Jews into humanity in general and the nostalgic traditionalism that sought to divorce Judaism from the modern project. Zunz enacted a nineteenth-century version of the conflicted double gesture that characterized Mendelsson’s important earlier contributions. An ardent believer in the possibility of a modern “science [End Page 39] of Judaism,” Zunz undertook a protracted study of Jewish history, literature, and tradition, zealous to convince his nineteenth-century European audience of the importance of Judaism to the history and progress of human culture as a whole. Zunz aimed to reconstruct Judaism’s distinctive contribution to the project of modernity, thereby exposing the category of assimilation as distorting Judaism’s internal relation to modern Western culture. While his ultimate position may be unclear, as Emil L. Fackenheim contends, his research, like Mendelsson’s, testifies to a genuine tension shaping many non-antisemitic 2 responses to the debate, which exhibit a profound devotion to the preservation of Judaism as a culture as well as a desire to incorporate that tradition into a broader, universal project. 3 Zunz’s approach is less incoherent than plangently symptomatic of the constraints built into the very structure of the Jewish Question, which always already poses Judaism as a problem for modernity. George Eliot, who read and admired Zunz, also produced a major contribution to debate on the Jewish Question, represented primarily by her last novel, Daniel Deronda, and subordinately by the concluding essay in The Impressions of Theophrastus Such, “The Modern Hep! Hep! Hep!” In general, Eliot’s relation to Judaism has been faulted for its idealism, but I want to suggest that it is by and large the critiques, and not Eliot’s own position, that reproduce the logic whereby Judaism’s relation to modernity is too starkly drawn. Terry Eagleton delivers a common verdict on Daniel Deronda when he argues that the utopianism of the Jewish plot, with its accompanying ideal of organic totality, disavows the unstable conditions of modernity so vividly depicted in the Gwendolen Harleth plot, with its countervailing emphasis on exchange value, amoralism, contingency, and sheer will to power. 4 In somewhat different terms, Christina Crosby has argued that Eliot’s idealistic representation of Judaism ultimately negates the Jews themselves. As she puts it, in order for the Jews to “become the representative historical..." @default.
• W2022974974 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2022974974 creator A5068300517 @default.
• W2022974974 date "1997-01-01" @default.
• W2022974974 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W2022974974 title "George Eliot and the Jewish Question" @default.
• W2022974974 cites W1486638176 @default.
• W2022974974 cites W1511770768 @default.
• W2022974974 cites W1547750909 @default.
• W2022974974 cites W1550209602 @default.
• W2022974974 cites W1556988148 @default.
• W2022974974 cites W1558359436 @default.
• W2022974974 cites W1580894249 @default.
• W2022974974 cites W1778463599 @default.
• W2022974974 cites W1829546821 @default.
• W2022974974 cites W1967800005 @default.
• W2022974974 cites W1986905504 @default.
• W2022974974 cites W2037826326 @default.
• W2022974974 cites W2044375835 @default.
• W2022974974 cites W2058189664 @default.
• W2022974974 cites W2085170821 @default.
• W2022974974 cites W2090819117 @default.
• W2022974974 cites W2091868325 @default.
• W2022974974 cites W2094387534 @default.
• W2022974974 cites W2106594414 @default.
• W2022974974 cites W2318138935 @default.
• W2022974974 cites W2329850522 @default.
• W2022974974 cites W2337348924 @default.
• W2022974974 cites W2490325718 @default.
• W2022974974 cites W3213642134 @default.
• W2022974974 cites W368968535 @default.
• W2022974974 cites W566488629 @default.
• W2022974974 cites W596884025 @default.
• W2022974974 cites W644429573 @default.
• W2022974974 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/yale.1997.0001" @default.
• W2022974974 hasPublicationYear "1997" @default.
• W2022974974 type Work @default.
• W2022974974 sameAs 2022974974 @default.
• W2022974974 citedByCount "89" @default.
• W2022974974 countsByYear W20229749742012 @default.
• W2022974974 countsByYear W20229749742013 @default.
• W2022974974 countsByYear W20229749742015 @default.
• W2022974974 countsByYear W20229749742016 @default.
• W2022974974 countsByYear W20229749742017 @default.
• W2022974974 countsByYear W20229749742019 @default.
• W2022974974 countsByYear W20229749742022 @default.
• W2022974974 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2022974974 hasAuthorship W2022974974A5068300517 @default.
• W2022974974 hasConcept C107038049 @default.
• W2022974974 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2022974974 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2022974974 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2022974974 hasConcept C150152722 @default.
• W2022974974 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2022974974 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2022974974 hasConcept C24667770 @default.
• W2022974974 hasConcept C27206212 @default.
• W2022974974 hasConcept C2778682666 @default.
• W2022974974 hasConcept C2780326160 @default.
• W2022974974 hasConcept C521449643 @default.
• W2022974974 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W2022974974 hasConceptScore W2022974974C107038049 @default.
• W2022974974 hasConceptScore W2022974974C111472728 @default.
• W2022974974 hasConceptScore W2022974974C138885662 @default.
• W2022974974 hasConceptScore W2022974974C144024400 @default.
• W2022974974 hasConceptScore W2022974974C150152722 @default.
• W2022974974 hasConceptScore W2022974974C17744445 @default.
• W2022974974 hasConceptScore W2022974974C199539241 @default.
• W2022974974 hasConceptScore W2022974974C24667770 @default.
• W2022974974 hasConceptScore W2022974974C27206212 @default.
• W2022974974 hasConceptScore W2022974974C2778682666 @default.
• W2022974974 hasConceptScore W2022974974C2780326160 @default.
• W2022974974 hasConceptScore W2022974974C521449643 @default.
• W2022974974 hasConceptScore W2022974974C94625758 @default.
• W2022974974 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2022974974 hasLocation W20229749741 @default.
• W2022974974 hasOpenAccess W2022974974 @default.
• W2022974974 hasPrimaryLocation W20229749741 @default.
• W2022974974 hasRelatedWork W156718260 @default.
• W2022974974 hasRelatedWork W2059633104 @default.
• W2022974974 hasRelatedWork W2360254280 @default.
• W2022974974 hasRelatedWork W2360921224 @default.
• W2022974974 hasRelatedWork W2370273757 @default.
• W2022974974 hasRelatedWork W2375254897 @default.
• W2022974974 hasRelatedWork W2378003475 @default.
• W2022974974 hasRelatedWork W2379328308 @default.
• W2022974974 hasRelatedWork W264847518 @default.
• W2022974974 hasRelatedWork W2129217810 @default.
• W2022974974 hasVolume "10" @default.
• W2022974974 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2022974974 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2022974974 magId "2022974974" @default.
• W2022974974 workType "article" @default.