Between Life and Thought: Existential Anthropology and the Academic Study of Religion
In the chapter entitled “Sartre’s Jews and Jackson’s Witches: What (Who?) is real in Existential Anthropology?” Seeman draws on Jean-Paul Sartre’s analysis of Jewish identity as well as Michael Jackson’s analysis of witchcraft in the context of subjectivity in order to highlight existential anthropology’s potential to help determine, quite literally, what is real and why it matters.
In outlining the approaches that Sartre and Jackson have taken with respect to existential anthropology, the question of belief systems and how people apply them to the world in various ways, Seeman shines a light on both agency and ownership of the lived experience, in the context of the scapegoating of Jews, Gypsies, and witches. He explores particularism on one hand and then how the universality of those particular experiences can lead to complicated and conflated analyses of separate events. In order to make convincing points about how these groups survived and even thrived in the face of extraordinary adversity, Seeman frames the approach and work of Sartre and Jackson while also, at the end of the chapter, questioning his own role as ethnographer. For example, he allows Sartre and Jackson leeway in interpreting and presuming the will and interiority of the people who died for who they were despite that they don’t look as generously or closely at the side seeking to annihilate them. Seeman wonders whether he ought to engage similarly or if he should simply present their approach. Either way, he presents Sartre here as an investigator of the concept of agency in terms of the Jews of Europe and how they persisted and lived truthfully as Jews in the aftermath of a mass attempt at their destruction, and he presents Jackson as uncomfortable with the accidental erasure of one side of the witch story in pursuit of the defending the other. In both cases, there are conflicts inherent in taking sides of any kind and yet, it feels imperative to take a side. Importantly, these events are not related. That they have overlap does not make them the same. When Jackson expresses concern about his own erasure of witchcraft, he worries that he perhaps isn’t giving scholarly credence to the idea of witchcraft as a real and true thing and therefore something worth defending or standing up for. He then extrapolates that he might make this same mistake in evaluating Jews and whether a predisposition of empathy or understanding of one group leads to a bias of some kind. “‘We [anthropologists] often tend to forget all definitions of order and disorder are relative and arbitrary.’ (Seeman (288) quoting Jackson 1975, 388)
In many ways, Seeman seems to be observing the discomfort at the intersections of various people who have been persecuted and to what extent the capturing of that experience is subjective in nature based on moral presumptions and a broadly accepted worldview. Are they necessarily the same? Do we assume that all persecuted groups are victims of the same kind of persecution? Or should we take each case in its own context? Today, in the wake of October 7th, the role of the ethnographer feels more distinct from the philosopher or the existential anthropologist and yet they work hand in hand. Seeman writes: “existential ‘authenticity’ represents a solution to the conundrum of universals and particulars that has helped to shape both anthropology and the academic study of religion since their inception as disciplines” (218) It feels important to look at the moral framework around and the experience of persecution as something we take at face value–to be persecuted for who you are and how you live is always bad. But it is also important to look at each case as its own tragedy in its own time with its own complexities.
I think you do a great job of capturing the reading, and I appreciated your question that you asked at the end about whether all persecuted groups are victims of the same type of persecution. I think this is an essential question to ask in relation to the other question we have been discussing of culture or condition, as in order to make the argument that the defining aspect of Jewishness is a condition, there has to be some assertion as well that this condition is different than that of other persecuted groups, or else the Jewish condition wouldn’t be unique. Taking into account the second part of Return to Casablanca, I thought that the interactions Levy describes between the Jews who stayed in Morocco and those who didn’t on page 187 were really interesting. When we consider both culture and condition, I think it’s important to keep in mind that within Judaism, there might be variation of both.
Thank you for your commentary, Grace. I particularly liked the quote you pulled from the reading: ‘We, [anthropologists] often tend to forget all definitions of order and disorder are relative and arbitrary.’ (Seeman (288) quoting Jackson 1975, 388). This quote highlights how we often forget that defining things in anthropological work is dependent on our perspective, culture, or biases. You reflect on how anthropologists can allow their empathy for one group to make a blind spot or bias toward other groups. I think this point relates directly to something I touched on in my own blog post– that anthropologists often struggle with maintaining objectivity when studying their own people. Dr. Seeman’s quote takes this argument a step further by adding the element of other people. Throughout “Return to Casablanca,” André Levy writes from an “us” vs. “them” perspective when discussing the relationship between Muslims and Jews in Morocco. This dynamic demonstrates how anthropologists, even with the best intentions, can inadvertently reinforce divisions or overlook complexities when their personal biases or cultural frames influence their interpretations.
I really liked the questions you asked at the end of your post about considering different types of persecution and the context in which they happen and exist. Speaking of witches, this week’s discussion reminded me of a really specific class I took during my semester abroad in Italy on the “History of Witchcraft.” It was an extremely interesting course, and one aspect of the class that has since stuck with me was this medieval “lepers-Jews-witches gradation,” as the Church’s targeting of these outgroups intensified the search for a scapegoat, and as a result, the image of a demonic, superhuman enemy to scapegoat emerged– the witch– but all of these groups were part of this creation of an enemy. There were vicious rumors about lepers and especially Jews conspiring to poison the wells in 1300s France as the plague began to spread throughout Europe. This accusation of this “enemy within” led to extreme persecution of outgroups. Fabricated facts led to torture, expulsions, and extermination of Jews and “witches,” also known as women or those seen as dangers to the Church, as the plague raged on and Jews were primarily blamed and persecuted: A scarily familiar trend. This is why your question of when to look at intersections of tragedies and persecutions stuck out to me because there was a lot of intersection during this time, but the main persecutors were the same. It is frightening that still today we see unfair scapegoating and persecution based on cruel and false beliefs about one’s identity, especially looking at how the world responded after the attacks on October 7th and what has unfortunately continued still today. In addition to thinking about the impact of October 7th, I think Levy’s discussion of homeland and diaspora was interesting to think about as we have discussed the definition of Jews and the Jewish connection to Israel, and how some define that connection can be complicated for some American or diasporic Jews who see themselves as “separate” from the Jewish state or choose not to see it as their homeland. Levy discusses “the complexity inherent in the relationship between the categories of ‘homeland’ and diaspora”(172) and this in-between that many Moroccan Jews felt as they settled into Israel.
Great post Grace! I think you really captured the complexity of Dr. Seeman’s argument in your response, especially in highlighting the tension between universal and individual experiences of persecution. The book demonstrates how existential anthropology can help us distinguish between what is “real” while also acknowledging the limits of interpreting others’ experiences. I also appreciate how you pointed out Dr. Seeman’s struggle with taking sides, where he seems torn between defending the persecuted and recognizing the risk of erasing important nuances of broader contexts. Your reference to October 7th reveals how these challenges remain relevant today, reminding us of the difficulty in avoiding oversimplification while still empathizing with those who have suffered. It’s definitely a balancing act between fostering empathy and respecting each unique context. On a quick side note, I think this discussion is very interesting within the context of a philosophy class I’m taking, which aims to understand the basis of human perception and our position within the world. This within the scope of 20th century existentialist philosophy. I would love to talk more on that if it seems interesting to you. Thanks again for your thoughtful insights!
This post presents a nuanced reflection on the intersection of existential anthropology and the study of persecution. I particularly appreciate the discussion on the tension between universalizing experiences of suffering and recognizing the distinctiveness of each group’s persecution. The way you bring in Seeman’s questioning of ethnographers’ roles and their potential biases in empathizing with one group over another resonates deeply, especially in today’s context. It’s a reminder that while empathy is crucial, there’s also a responsibility to capture the specificities of each group’s experience. The connection to the complexities of modern-day events makes these discussions feel incredibly relevant and urgent.
I really enjoyed your blog post. You did a great job synthesizing Dr. Seeman’s argument and explaining the complexities surrounding particularism and universality. I appreciate your discussion on Jewish identity and witchcraft using your analysis of Jackson and Sartre’s work. The questions you ask are thought-provoking. I think many groups can face similar experiences of persecution but it is important to view each case in its own context.