Words serve a function. A structuralist would say that a word acts as a signifier and the definition that people associate with that word is the signified. A post-structuralist would argue that the words meaning depends on a person’s context and could change from moment to moment and person to person. The way we approach words lies somewhere in between. We all approach a word differently, but we seek to agree upon a definition to have a common understanding. Antisemitism is a great example of this reality. Every person approaches the word Antisemitism differently, but as scholars we need a working definition that we can agree upon Antisemitism is the conscience or unconscious hatred of a Jew or Jews, because of certain characteristics that
…show more content…
Who and What have already been addressed, and Why is continuing to be explained as best that it can be. Where has gotten attention when necessary. However, when has not been discussed yet. One thing that should be avoided in definition of antisemitism is to imply directly or indirectly that the hatred of Jews is eternal and undefeatable. Antisemitism has both a gradual and periodic nature to it. Overtime there has been continuities between episodes of antisemitism, but the individual episodes have qualities that are isolated from all the other episodes. The theory of repetition offers an approach that accounts for both the gradual and periodic aspects of antisemitism. The theory states that antisemitism is a sequence of phenomena that are all rooted in the action of the hater using Jews as scapegoats for his or her problems. This theory avoids approaching the Israelites enslavement in Egypt in the same way you would approach the Holocaust. It also avoids treating the ways the Protocols of the Elders of Zion have been used and the way anti-Zionist propaganda has been used, as to phenomena that are completely alienated from one another. Instead the theory of reputation treats these as distinct events, each with its on complicated context, while acknowledging that all of them have the same foundation. The definition mentioned at the beginning of the paper is not …show more content…
So much is left up to context. Any definition has its limits and can be interpreted in a countless number of ways. No definition is safe from critique. However, antisemitism overs some complications that are unique to itself. One complication is its history. This is one reason why my definition does not mention time. Antisemitism is a recent word, but it is often retrogressively used to define events that could not have been conceptualized as antisemitism at the time they occurred because the word did not exist yet. Then the word originally included all Semitic speaking people, but from its inception it has been used almost always to mean the hatred of Jews. The word is often defined to broadly and can suggest that the Holocaust, and Mel Gibson’s drunken rant carry the same weight. Many definitions don’t offer a rank and file system for antisemitism, in which more severe acts of hate are worse than less severe. On the flip side of that coin those same definitions do not lessen the validity of the less severe events. Despite all its problems the word antisemitism is still able to serve a valuable function as the word in which scholars can frame the hatred of the
Who and What have already been addressed, and Why is continuing to be explained as best that it can be. Where has gotten attention when necessary. However, when has not been discussed yet. One thing that should be avoided in definition of antisemitism is to imply directly or indirectly that the hatred of Jews is eternal and undefeatable. Antisemitism has both a gradual and periodic nature to it. Overtime there has been continuities between episodes of antisemitism, but the individual episodes have qualities that are isolated from all the other episodes. The theory of repetition offers an approach that accounts for both the gradual and periodic aspects of antisemitism. The theory states that antisemitism is a sequence of phenomena that are all rooted in the action of the hater using Jews as scapegoats for his or her problems. This theory avoids approaching the Israelites enslavement in Egypt in the same way you would approach the Holocaust. It also avoids treating the ways the Protocols of the Elders of Zion have been used and the way anti-Zionist propaganda has been used, as to phenomena that are completely alienated from one another. Instead the theory of reputation treats these as distinct events, each with its on complicated context, while acknowledging that all of them have the same foundation. The definition mentioned at the beginning of the paper is not …show more content…
So much is left up to context. Any definition has its limits and can be interpreted in a countless number of ways. No definition is safe from critique. However, antisemitism overs some complications that are unique to itself. One complication is its history. This is one reason why my definition does not mention time. Antisemitism is a recent word, but it is often retrogressively used to define events that could not have been conceptualized as antisemitism at the time they occurred because the word did not exist yet. Then the word originally included all Semitic speaking people, but from its inception it has been used almost always to mean the hatred of Jews. The word is often defined to broadly and can suggest that the Holocaust, and Mel Gibson’s drunken rant carry the same weight. Many definitions don’t offer a rank and file system for antisemitism, in which more severe acts of hate are worse than less severe. On the flip side of that coin those same definitions do not lessen the validity of the less severe events. Despite all its problems the word antisemitism is still able to serve a valuable function as the word in which scholars can frame the hatred of the