Anti-Semite and Jew by Jean-Paul Sartre is essential for understanding the complexities of Jewish identity and the role that social factors play in shaping the relationship between anti-Semitism and Jews. As the first non-Jewish writer to address European anti-semitism, Sartre offers a perspective to the “Jewish Question” that is rooted in unbiased observations, allowing him to objectively show how anti-semitism functions in societies. In class, we discussed the phrase, “existence that precedes its essence”, which is famously attributed to Sartre. This quote means that humans are not predetermined, instead, we are thrown into a “condition” that we cannot fundamentally change. But, we have the power to respond to our conditions and make choices about how we engage in them.
In Anti-Semite and Jew, I noticed strong themes of existentialism underlying Sartre’s observations and analysis of the Jewish Problem. Throughout his book, Sartre argues that social facts have a lot of importance and impact on people’s actions and beliefs. Sartre supported this argument in the context of postwar France. Sartre introduces four categories of people: the anti-semite, the democrat, the inauthentic Jew, and the authentic Jew. I believe that Sartre uses these four categories to illustrate the different tendencies people exhibit in contemporary society. A quote that stood out to me was in Sartre’s examination of anti-Semites. Sartre writes, The anti-semite finds the existence of the Jew absolutely necessary. Otherwise, to whom would he be superior?” This quote supports the idea that anti-semites project their own fears and insecurities onto Jews, using them as scapegoats to feel a sense of superiority. Sartre uses the democrat to represent how followers of the Enlightenment pretend as if the Jewish problem does not exist, which allows anti-semites to voice their opinions about Jews. Lastly, Sartre defines an authentic Jew as one who accepts their situation fully, and an inauthentic Jew rejects it.
While reading, I thought about Jewishness using new perspectives. Before familiarizing myself with Sartre’s work, I thought that being a Jew was an independent concept, and anti-semitism was just an effect. Rather, Sartre provided me with a new understanding that “one is not born a Jew, one becomes one under the gaze of the Other”. Sartre’s work is important to read because the themes of anti-semitism that he discusses are transferable across time and space, whether it ia postwar France or America in the 21st century. My one critique for Sartre is that the social context in which he describes anti-semitism and Jewish identity seemed very narrow. I think it would have been effective for him to explore the relationship between these two actors in other places and eras.
Emma, I appreciated what you had to say about anti-semitism being used to define Jewishness, not Jewishness being the catalyst for anti-semitism. However, I want to push you further on your comments about Sartre being unbiased and how he categorizes Jews. Do you really feel that he is an unbiased observer, and if so, in what sense? And secondly, in the notion of Jewishness being authentic. Do you think he is thinking about religious Jews or Jews who can fit into French culture in a way that Sartre finds acceptable? His version of Jewishness is very narrow, so I am curious as to how you would understand it in his concept of authenticity.
I like the quote you pulled from Sartre saying that “one is not born a Jew, one becomes one under the gaze of the Other” because one of his main arguments is that the Jew exists only in the contexts of antisemites creating the Jew. For example, on page 69 Sartre states, “The Jew is one whom other men consider a Jew: that is the simple truth from which we must start. in this sense democrat is right as against the antisemite, for it is the antisemite who makes the Jew.” I did find some issue with the way he spoke about the “Jew” that we touched on briefly in class. I felt that Sartre failed to consider most of the historical context of the Jewish people, and only briefly mentioned some of it towards the beginning. He makes the claim that Christians “created” the Jew, and tries to define Jewish identity by focusing on more contemporary Jews while not acknowledging older forms of Jew hatred in other contexts, or deep historical roots. One unique part of Judaism is its continuity throughout time because of traditions and core beliefs, which is not necessarily contingent on Jews’ external environment. I think one identifying feature of a “Jew” is their resilience throughout time and I think it’s also beneficial to examine the more positive and unique aspects of Jews rather than just focusing on external hatred. For example, someone who just read Sartre would not gain any of the information about the Jews that is expressed in “Life is with People,” and they also may not understand how antisemitism has shifted throughout time according to context (like the idea of hatred of religion, race, nation-state which was an idea from Rabbi Sacks that I remember talking about in high school.) Another point I thought was interesting was the idea of authenticity. Sartre says that “the moment he ceases to be passive, he takes away all power and all virulence from anti-Semitism. The inauthentic Jew flees Jewish reality, and the anti-Semite makes him a Jew in spite of himself; but the authentic Jew makes himself a Jew, in the face of all and against all. He accepts all, even martyrdom, and the anti-Semite, deprived of his weapons, must be content to yelp at the Jew as he goes by, and can no longer touch him”(137). What does it mean to be authentic in a modern society that requires to some extent some form of acculturation?
I appreciate Sartre’s argument on Jewishness not being an inherent characteristic, but rather a condition. In this view, Jewishness can be described as a set of relations that make up the condition of Jewishness, instead of being an inalienable essence embedded within Jewish people. Essentially, Jewishness is understood as a social construct in this context. For instance, for a Jew to understand themselves as a Jew they may need to have a certain upbringing, have parents who are also Jewish, be referred to as Jewish, etc. The concept of Jewishness may not mean much to someone who, hypothetically, has Jewish lineage but is unaware of this fact and is surrounded and raised by people who are just as unaware. Yet, I wouldn’t necessarily suggest that Sartre has an objective analysis of antisemitism here. Sartre describes antisemites as people who are afraid of their own consciousness and their own capacity for freedom, hence making them seek the ‘impenetrability of a stone’ as Sartre describes. However, this way of understanding antisemitism is limited within Sartre’s own views as an existentialist: playing psychoanalytic with an issue such as antisemitism may appear insightful at first, but it may also reduce a systemic and historical (and continuing) issue into an issue about the individual’s psyche.
I really enjoyed reading your perception of Sartre’s argument. Your commentary made me think of the beginning of the book, where Sartre says that “if the Jew did not exist, the anti-Semite would invent him” (page 13). This argument does not make sense to me because I do not believe that people can hate things that they do not know exist. When Sartre asked individuals their reasoning for hating Jews, they cited examples like their “selfishness,” “persistence,” and “critical habits” (page 11). If people did not know of Jews’s existence, how could they possibly hate all these things about them? This is where Sartre’s argument loses its strength for me, and I wonder, will it ever be possible for people to hate something that they do not know exists?
Sartre, J.-P. (1948). Anti-Semite and Jew. Schocken Books.
“One is not born a Jew, one becomes one under the gaze of the Other”. I really like how you pulled this quote at the end because I personally think this is one of the most, if not the most controversial, statements Sartre makes in his writing. This is obviously a heavy statement to make, and while I’m not Jewish, I can definitely see why this may not go over well, but I think in the context of Sartre’s work, it’s a little more understandable. To start with, I think it’s important to consider the cultural/historical context of this statement, which is 1940s Europe. At this time, you have, of course, the rise of the Nazi party in Germany, but in a broader sense, you have an overwhelming number of men and women in Europe sympathizing with the Nazi party and aligning themselves with antisemitic movements across Europe. When you have works coming out of Germany claiming that being a “Jew” has nothing to do with religion and instead is a racial category that comes with specific “Jewish traits, and personality” it becomes a lot easier to digest this quote. The way I interpreted this quote (which may or may not be Sartre’s intended interpretation) is that being a Jew in the sense that was being popularized at the time, a racialized and homogeneous identity, was one that was not inherent to being a Jew but instead was something placed upon a person, effectively identifying them as a “Jew” in European society and in the mind of an anti-semite.
You did a great job summarizing Sartre’s book, especially with the four characters he mentions. I found his writing to be quite impressive and informative in the way he describes the mindset of those four characters. My favorite line from the book is “Even if the Jew did not exist, the anti-semite would invent him” (page 13). Anti-semitism isn’t rational, and I’m glad he was able to articulate this clearly. Anti-Semites have always tried to make Jews feel inferior and use them as scapegoats. You also make an excellent point that this topic is extremely relevant to America in the 21st century, not just postwar France. Especially right now, Jews are being threatened and attacked around the world. We must understand the minds of anti-Semites, and Sartre certainly helps with this.
I thought this book was very well written regarding understanding what it means to be anti-semitic and what different antisemitic actions could look like. Especially in today’s world anti-semitism can be hard to define, and I think Sarte does a good job explaining how it isn’t necessarily defined. Sartre claims that “it is therefore the idea of the Jew that one forms for himself which would seem to determine history, not the ‘historical fact’ that produces the idea”(16). Emma contributed to this idea adding that being a Jew in this context isn’t an independent concept but rather one formed by other people. Additionally, I agree that Sartre’s view of antisemitism is very narrow as he relies heavily on the condition of the anti-semite. I think it would add some more depth to discuss the social, political, and economic structures at the time that perpetuated antisemitism.
Your perspective on Sartre’s work is valuable and I appreciate your analysis of his understanding of what it means to be a Jew. I would not describe his perspective as objective, because he operates as an existentialist non-Jew in French society and that absolutely informs his understanding of Jewishness. While understanding Jewishness as something beyond individual identity is valuable, and sometimes lacking in modern understandings, solely defining “Jew” through antisemitism seems underdeveloped. It doesn’t take into account traditional (or modern) Jewish understandings. It also seems to imply that with a end to antisemitism, there would be an end to Jews. I think further consideration of Jews as understood through halakha, tradition, peoplehood, etc… would add significatly to Sartre’s point. I definitely agree that the context in which he understood antisemitism and Jewish identity was narrow and should be expanded on. Thank you for sharing your thoughts!
I really enjoyed your detailed summarization of the text and your focus on antisemitism. It’s interesting how Sartres’ “narrow” view of antisemitism relates to what it means to be a jew or what Jewishness is, aka what we are trying to answer in this class. As other people have mentioned in their comments, the topic of Jewishness is a complex one and you began to touch on what that means according to Sartre. I wish you touched more on how his personal relationships may have formed these views and definitions.
I agree wholeheartedly about the narrow social context that Sartre is considering here, and it made me think of how broad and misused the both the terms “antisemite” and “Jew” are today. That there is ugliness directed atJews of all kinds today but also between Jews themselves about who is and isn’t authentic. It is hard not to apply this framework for antisemitism to our current political climate. When Sartre asserts that antisemitism “is something quite other than an idea. It is first of all a passion” (10) it immediately brought to mind the rhetoric around Jewishness that has developed within the Jewish community and that threatens to do the work of the antisemite. When he write that “Since the anti-Semite has chosen hate, we are forced to conclude that it is the state of passion that he loves” (18), it seems like this brushes over the idea of needing an outlet for general angst and dissatisfaction rather than directing hatred at a group of people. Sartre goes on to describe how we innately hate change, which he interprets as “a basic fear of oneself and of truth” (19). Any group that expresses passion through hate is afraid of change, whether they are admit it or not. Life is easier for people like this when everything they believe to be true remains true. Their fear disturbs them to the point of keeping them in that passionate state of hatred because they aren’t brave enough to embrace change or expansion or revision. Hatred seems to provide an easy way for people whose minds are closed to stay closed.
I like your analysis, and as you and others in the comments have noted, I agreed that Sartre’s definition of a Jew as being solely held together by the conditions of an antisemitic society (or, “the gaze of the other,” as Sartre puts it) is one of the most important parts of the book. I believe this quote goes hand in hand with another quote of “if the Jew did not exist, the anti-semite would invent him” (8). With these two ideas, Sartre establishes not only that Jewishness doesn’t have content within itself and rather is defined as the object of anti-semitism, but also that the anti-semite would invent a different scapegoat as an outlet for fear and hatred if it weren’t Jews. I think that the excerpt of Levi-Strauss that we read demonstrates the first idea, as we discussed how the main unifying factor he identified between himself and the other Jewish man in his cabin was the fact that they were both escaping occupied France. Though shared experiences of oppression can unite people, I also wonder how Sartre’s analysis would differ through more study or observation of Jewish culture and religion. We discussed in an earlier class how nostalgic tones can become part of writings done by Jewish anthropologists, but while his outsider status definitely gives Sartre a different and useful perspective, I think it is important to remember that just because he isn’t Jewish doesn’t make his perspective objective.