This Page Intentionally No Longer Blank

Anti-Semite anu }ew

!"#$%#&' (#)*)"


|1944j

Tianslateu by ueoige }. Beckei
















Schocken Books New Yoik








Copyiight 1948 by Schocken Books Inc.
Copyiight ieneweu 1976 by Schocken Books Inc.

All iights ieseiveu unuei inteinational anu Pan-Ameiican
Copyiight conventions. Publisheu in the 0niteu States by
Schocken Books Inc., New Yoik. Bistiibuteu by Pantheon
Books, a uivision of Ranuom Bouse Inc., New Yoik.
0iiginally publisheu in Fiance as +,-'"./0$1 1&) '#
2&"1*/0$ !&/3" by Euitions-Noiihien. Copyiight 1946 by
Paul Noiihien. Paiis.

Libiaiy of Congiess Cataloging-in-Publication Bata

Saitie, }ean-Paul. 19uS
|+,-'"./0$1 1&) '# 2&"1*/0$ !&/3". Englishj
Anti-Semite anu }ew }ean-Paul Saitie : Tianslateu by
ueoige }. Beckei : with a new pieface my Nichael Walzei.

p. em.

Pieviously publisheu: New Yoik, Schocken Books, 1948.
ISBN u-8uS2-1u47-4
I. Antisemitism. I. Title.
BSI4S.S271S 199S
SuS.8924ue2u 9S-1929
CIP

Nanufactuieu in the 0niteu States of Ameiica
Fiist Schocken papeiback euition publisheu 196S.
|'9Sj 9 8 7

PREFACE
Sometime in the second half of 1944, as the war in
Europe drew to a close, Jean-Paul Sartre noticed that in
discussions about postwar France, the imminent return
of French Jews deported by the Nazis was never men-
tioned. Some of the speakers, he guessed, were not
pleased by the prospect; others, friends of the Jews,
thought it best to he silent. (Neither they nor Sartre
knew how many of the deported Jews would never
return.) Thinking about these discussions, Sartre
decided to write a critique of anti-Semitism. Both the
occasion and the subject of the critique were French.
Having lived through the occupation, writing a year or
so before the great celebration of the resistance began,
Sartre addressed the complicity of the French in the
Nazi project. He did so, however, at a level of abstrac-
tion that only few of the French found disturbing. The
critique, as it turned out, was more disturbing to the
v
Jews, with whom Sartre meant to declare his solidarity.
Sartre provides no account of the writing of Anti-
Semite and Jew. The book must been composed at
breakneck speed, for it was ready to be excerpted in one
of the first issues of Temps Modernes, founded in 1945.
Though Sartre reports on a number of conversations with
friends and acquaintances, he says that he did no
research. He had read, of course, the most influential
anti-Semitic writers-Charles Maurras and Maurice Har-
res; and he had encountered anti-Semitism in own
family and among schoolmates at Lycee. But did
not stop now to read about Jewish history or religion, and
the only Jews that he knew were highly assimilated, with
little more understanding than he had of either one.
Among committed he had no conneetions of any
kind. So he wrote what he thought, describing a world
that he knew only in part, reconstructing it in conformity
with existentialist psychology and enlightenment skepti-
and the version of Marxist class that he had
made his own. (In the ]940s, he regularly denied that he
was a Marxist, but his commitment-to-come is evident in
this book.) He produced a phi10sophical speculation var-
iously supported by anecdotes and personal observations.
The result, however, is a powerfully coherent argument
that demonstrates how theoretieal sophistication and
practical ignorance can, usefully combine .
.
VI
There is much to criticize in the essay: reading it again
fifty years after it was written, one sees immediately how
much it was shaped by a specific (and no longer entirely
persuasive) political orientation. Its ignorance of Judaism
was willful and programmatic-for this parochial reli-
gious doctrine, and the community it shaped, and all
such doctrines and communities, had no place in the
world to come as Sartre conceived it, after the liberation
of France and the future liberation of humankind. But
the world as it is, France in 1944, is also Sartre's subject.
He saw clearly that the defeat of the Nazis was not yet
the end of the European catastrophe, and he set out, like
many other intellectuals in the 19408 and '50s, to under-
stand the rootedness of prejudice, hatred, and genocide
in his own society. Anti-Semite and Jew, in its best pas-
sages, stands with Theodor Adorno's study of the author-
itarian personality, Talcott Parsons' essays on the
sociology of Nazism, Erich Fromm's Escape from Free-
dom, and Hannah Arendt's account of totalitarian pol-
itics.
But Sartre's book should not be read as a piece of
social science or even (as I have described it) as a philo-
sophical speculation. His best work in the 1940s was in
drama (No Exit was first performed in 1944; The Respect-
ful Prostitute in 1946; Dirty Hands in 1948), and Anti-
Semite and Jew is a Marxist/existentialist morality play,
..
VII
whose charaeters are produced by their dramatic inter-
The interaetions are never actually hy
people with proper names; the dialogue h, never rendered
in the first person. remains imper-
sonal., and "'si and the
dramatic. in No f;xit, of
small. It of four the .. the
democrat, the inauthentie Jew, the authentie Jew. rrhe
first and third of these play the the and
fourth have only minor parts-hence the drama
not tragic finally., hut savagely critical of world it
describes. offstage to the is the
revolutionary worker.
the structure of the Sartrean drama: ehar-
aeter creates the and does
both from the inside of a "situation" that Sartre com-
monly describes in a manner" at partly learned from
that its charaeter. rrhe drama
from the interplay of social forces and individual
deeisions. It virtually impossible to the relative
weight of these two. While Sartre always that indi-
viduals are not only for what they do hut also
for what they are, it is nonetheless elear that make
their choices under duress.
'fhe tension is most apparent in the portrait of the anti-
Semite, which is commonly and rightly taken to hp. the
VIIi
strongest part of the book. The anti-Semite is of alJ a
social-psychological type, shaped by the narrowness and
vulnerability of the world he inhabits (Sartre writes about
all four of his characters as if they were men, so I will
use maseuline pronouns in discussing them). The
description is familiar today, Sartre ib one of the
first writers to provide it. The anti-Semite comes from the
lower middle class of the provincial towns: he is a func-
tionary, office worker, small businessman-a "white col-
lar proletarian." Member of a declining social C)W,b, he is
threatened by social change, endlessly fearful and
resentful. He "possesses nothing," but hy i<lentifying the
Jew as an alien, he lays claim to all of Franee. He is
moved by a "nostalgia for ... the primitive community'"
in which he can claim ascriptive membership: French by
birth, language, and history, here he doesn't need to
prove either his identity or his worth. The diversity and
complexity of "modern social organization" are beyond
his understanding; social mobility frightens him; the
modem forms of property (abstractions like money and
securities) are wholly mysterious to him. He sees the Jew
as the initiate in these mysteries, the representative of
modernity, the enemy of real Frenchmen, real property,
the land, tradition, social order, sentimental attach-
ment--capilalist, communist, atheist, traitor. And he
aims, finally, to destroy this sinister threat: "What [the
.
IX
anti-Semite] wishes, what he prepares, is the death of the
Jew."
The rich, Sartre says, exploit anti-Semitism Urather
than abandon themselves to it." And among workers, he
confidently claims, find scarcely any anti-Semitism."
This very precise class analysis, which locates the anti-
Semite in a fairly narrow segment of French society,
poses a problem for Sartre's argument: if only a part of
the society is anti-Semitic, why is the situation of the Jew
so radically determined by anti-Semitism? In fact, Sartre
is not wholly committed to class analysis. He starts
indeed, from his own circle of family and friends, who
came, mostly, out of the provi ncial petty bourgeoisie, but
he moves on to a more abstract characterization. Anti-
Semitism is also "a free and total choice of oneself," and
this choice, it seems, is made at every level of French
society. Sartre gives his readers a sense of pervasive anti-
Semitism, motivated by a general fear, not only of
ically modern uncertainties but also of 44 the human
condition," which is to say, of liberty, responsibility, soli-
tude, and truth C'that thing of indefinite approxima-
tion"-Sarlre's argument about the fear of truth is very
much like Adorno's "intolerance of ambiguity"). Some
people, the lower middle class especially, are more
threatened than others, but no one is entirely unafraid or
x
incapable of choosing the Jew as his enemy and himself
as an anti-Semite.
The anti-Semite creates the Jew, hut hefore that he
creates himself within his situation. (But isn't this situa-
tion in part the creation of the Jew as the anti-Semite has
created him? Sartre's argument is necessarily circular.
The inauthentic Jew, who appears later on in the drama,
is in fact an agent-though not the only or the most
important the modernity to which anti-Semites
react.) Sartre sometimes writes as if anti-Semitism is a
sociological reflex, but it is also, again, a choice. Indeed,
it is the very model of an inauthentic choice, for the anti-
Semite cannot or will not acknowledge his actual
situation or the fear it produces. He responds willfully to
a world that he willfully misrepresents. Though Sartre
never quite says this, it is strictly in line with his argu-
ment: anti-Semitism is the inauthenticity of the lower
middle class (and of anyone else who adopts it). But he
never suggests what authentic lower middle class men or
women would look like or how they would act-perhaps
he doubted that authenticity was a likely, even if it was a
possible, choice for members of a declining social class.
Authenticity is clearly not represented by the democ-
rat, another bourgeois figure and the second of Sartre's
dramatis personae. The democrat embodies the virtues of
.
Xl
the French revolution. A good liberal, poJitical centrist,
defender of decency, friend-so he would certainly
the Jews, he believes in the universal of
man, and he wants those rights to he recognized and
exercised right now. But his is a false universalism for
he is blind to the realities of the world he actually inhab-
its. He cannot acknowledge the strength of anti-Semitibm
or the concrete conditions of Jewish life, and so he fears
and rejects any authentic Jewish response. In an exactly
similar fashion, he eannot acknowledge the actual con-
dition of the class, and bO and rejects
authentic class consciousness.
The democrat defends the as a man hut "annihi-
lates him as a Jew" (compare the argument of Clermont-
Tonnerre in the Constituent 1791 debate on
Jewish citizenship: "One musl refube to the
Jews as a nation, and to the 8..."'t indi-
viduals .... "). But it is a Jew (and a member of the
Jewish nation) that the Jew is hy the otherb,
and this is an identity that he cannot escape-more
accurately, that he is not allowed to escape. So the
democrat's advocacy of aSbimilation for the Jews and
elasslessness for the though no douht weJl-
intentioned, is also cruelly premature. And is
crucial for Sarlre; his drama is historical as well as
..
XII
sociological; it moves in stages. The anti-Semite lives
fearfully in the past; the democrat lives naively, senti-
mentally, inauthentically in the future.
By contrast, the inauthentic Jew lives in what is for
him a desperate present. He seeks Uavenues of escape,"
hut the more he flees, the more he is trapped: the quin-
tessential modern man. Exactly what i& he fleeing from?
Sartre's answer to this question is the most problematic
part of his argument-first, because it is far less clear
than the smooth surface of his essay suggests; and sec-
ond, because its most insistent claims are radically
implausible. Sartre starts with an absence: J ewishness in
the modern world, he announces, is an empty category.
As a result of "twenty-five centuries" of dispersion, dis-
solution, and political impotence (Sartre dates the Jewish
collapse from the Babylonian exile, not the destruction
of the Temple), the Jews are an ancient but also an
404O unhistoricaI people." This last term, horrowed from
Hegel and Marx, suggests a political/cultural backwater,
cut off from all progressive currents. Contemporary Jews
have, on this view, no civilization of their own; they can-
not take pride in any specifically Jewish collective
achievements; they have nothing to remember but a
"long martyrdom [and] a long passivity." More than any
other minority group, then, they are "perfectly assimil-
XIII
able" into the surrounding culture. Only
with its construction of the Jew as alien, cos-
mopolitan, bars the way.
But then one would expect the inauthentic or escapist
Jew to do everything he can to deny the construction and
to make himself, in France, more French than the
French. He should hide, pass, intermarry, buy
land, move to the provinces, adopt conservative or at
least conventional political views. Indeed, there have
always heen Jews who acted in this more or less
successfully. Other Jews named them with some
functional equivalent of inauthenticity-more obviously
morally laden, which Sartre insists his own term is not:
false, disloyal. But Sartre's inauthentic Jews
are driven in the opposite direction; they are evermore
cosmopolitan, ironic, rationalist, and so on. No
doubt, this is a portrait (and in its psychosocial detail
often a shrewd and insightful portrait) of the assimilated
Jewish intellectuals whom Sartre knew in the 1930s and
'40s, many of them refugees from the East. But these
people were not only trying to escape anti-Semitism and
the anti-Semite's construction of lewishnes&, they were
also escaping the closed communities and orthodox tra-
ditionalism of their own Jewish past-a presence, not an
analysis requires an account of this
subbtantive Judaism, for without it he cannot explain why
.
XIV
the Jew in flight confonns so closely to the conception he
is supposedly fleeing.
If he were to provide this account, he would also be
able to acknowledge that the of escape"
described in his book are chosen in part because of an
elective affinity between classical Jewish learning and
modernist intellectualism. I don't mean to suggest an
identity here, only an affinity-and one that is more a
matter of style than of content. The content of Jewish
learning is often, obviously, anti-modernist. Nonetheless,
one can recognize the interpretative freedom, the pursuit
of complexity for its own sake, and the argumentative
zeal of the classical yeshiva in the literary and political
work of Sartre's Jewish contemporaries. No doubt, the
cosmopolitan and leftist politics of (many) of these people
served their interests vis-A-vis both Jewish orthodoxy and
French anti-Semitism. Many communist Jews, to take the
easiest example, were hiding from their Jewishness in the
Party, while seeking a world-to which Sartre also
aspired, presumably for different reasons-in which lew-
ishness would not matter. Nonetheless, Jewish leftism
was not simply an invention of inauthentic Jews; its cast
of mind, intellectual tenor, and modes of analysis res-
onated clearly with an older culture whose very existence
Sartre denies.
Most of the features of Jewish intellectual success in
xv
the modern world are by Sartre to the night
from anti-Semitic eonstruetions of Self-
reflfi::ti .. irony 't
the "critical these
the of figures of modern
Srinoza, Kafka, Proust, Hut
these also very that the
in order to prove that the Jews are endlessly suh-
versi ve, acid eali away at the fahrie, corrodinll:
all traditional Even a..-.; they flee their
an anti-Semitic they aet out
and confirm in hi:-. ffl'ar
and hatrtacl. the- avenue of is not well eho-
()r perhaps Jewish
tivf"-sO that our of it ah,o a
de-eper of the past.
the Jew, has no sueh undfl'r-
He, too, as Sartre him, a ereature
of the present. He affirms his Jewish hut this
affirmation has nothing to do with or nos-
talgia for the old community, or a search for valup in the
tradition. It simply an aectaptance of the-
that the anti-Semite has and a
of the physical of the Jews within it (rememher that
the-y have, aeeording to Sartrfl' .. no cultural life). Political
Zionism is one of defense; the
.
XVI
Anti-Defamation League would be another; Sartre praises
a "Jewish league against anti-Semitism" then in forma-
tion in France. as authentic constant
analogy-rejeet the myth of social harmony, recognize
the reaJ i ty of class conflict, and make themsel ves into
militant defenders of working class authentic
Jews give up the universalist false of the
democrat, recognize social pluralism, and make them-
selves into militant defenders of Jewish interest5,. But
there is no real equivalence here. authenticity is
only a way of living well within the Jewihh situation; it
has no transformative force. (Years later, when he visited
Israel in 1967, Sartre revised this Zionism
had created a 4'ne\v Israeli Jew r whol, if he ean develop
in peace and understand all his and go
beyond them his actions ... will be one of the most
superior men to be found in history." Neither in 1944 nor
in 1967 did Sartre display any p;ift for understatement.)
That is why the authentic Jew is only a minor character
in the Sartrean drama. But the authentic worker is a rev-
olutionary and, therefore, a key figure in what we might
think of as the next play. Sadly, the anti-Semite and the
inauthentic Jew are the key figures in this play, each of
them creating and confirming the other's existence,
locked together in a world from which there is, until the
revolution, no exi t.
. .
XVII
The working class militant waits in the wings. One
day, not quite yet, he will appear dramatically in history,
creating a classless society, which represents for Sartre
the end of every fonn of social division. The Jews will
assimilate into this society, leaving nothing behind, with-
out regret, giving up their lewishness just as the worker
gives up cla,ss consciousness for the sake of universality.
Exactly what happens to the lower middle class provin-
cial anti-Semite in the course of the revolution is unclear.
Defeated, he presumably disappears from the Sartrean
stage, along with the Jew he created.
But this is an ending to be wished for only on the
(false) assumption that there really is no Jewish history,
culture, or community. Nor are the Jews the only people
about whom this assumption would have to be made. The
anti-Semite "chooses" the Jew only because he is avail-
able; any dispossessed, stigmatized minority, any
tori cal people" could as easily be chosen. The Jew in
Europe is the exposed face of modern life. But the same
role can be played, with the same degree of authenticity
and inauthenticity, by other groups in other times and
places. None of these groups have, in Sarlre's eyes, any
claim on our moral attention beyond the claim they make
as persecuted men and women. We should defend the
group's existence only so long as its members are perse-
cuted as a group; after that, we defend only their indi-
XVIII
vidual rights. Sartre calls this position, which is his own,
"concrete liberalism." Indeed, he is a liberal, for all his
Marxizing sociology.
But he is nol a pluralist liberal. The disappearance of
historical peoples, like the French, is obviously not on
his and so he must imagine a future international
society of distinct nations (he would, of course, and in
the years to come he did, oppose every version of imper-
ial and chauvinist politics, including the French version).
With regard to a future France, however, he adopts a rad-
ically antipluralist position. This position is always
described in social and economic rather than cultural
terms: Sartre looks forward to a France "whose members
feel mutual bonds of solidarity, because they are all
engaged in the same enterprise." But he doesn't want to
repeat the error of the democrat: solidarity and mutual
engagement do not exist and cannot exist in contempo-
rary France, where class conflict creates and intensifies
cultural difference. Here and now, difference must be
accepted; there is no honest alternative. So the Jew has to
be granted his double identity, welcomed as a "French
Jew ... with his character, his customs, his tastes, his
religion if he has one." Multi-culturalism now: so we
might describe the Sartrean program. But this is, for him,
only a temporary and second-best solution to the prob-
lem of anti-Semitism. In no sense does it represent a
.
XIX
recognition that there might be any value in Jewish char-
acter, customs, tastes, or
This historically divided politics-difference now,
unity laler-ib, Sartre helieves, what authe'ntieity
Even if anti-Semitism "is a mythical ... repre-
sentation of the class it nonetheless a
uine affliction for the Jews. It reflects the reality of a
divided society, conflict of interests and the crOSb-
currents of passions ... it a pheTWmenon oj.'iocial plu-
added)." Living authentieally within
bituution means the eonniet and then
for the rights of an(l
rrhis ib the point of book, whieh he' proh-
ably of .. thought of it, u!') a polit-
ieal But Jongterm a bo('iety whe're-
no longer exist to he and
()nee again, Sartce' that this is what their mem-
her:-, also want. Je'wish authentieity is
for the' who longs to he what Sartre already is,
Freneh without qualification or addition.
But why is such an attractive It attractive
to Sartre of his eonviction that bocial pluralism
to eonflict .. and conniet pro-
duce'S and mythic:
of Uothe'r .. " of and fear onto
somp for Sartre
xx
consequences of pluralism. He is prepared to fight these
consequences, but he is sure that the fight wi II never be
won until pluralism, indeed, groupness itself, is defini-
tively transcended. The revolution will bring a new soli-
darity, which will have no specific historical or cultural
character, the ethnic or national or religious equivalent of
classlessness.
This is little more than the conventional left doctrine
of Sartre's own time-and before and after, too. Obvi-
ously, the strength of Anti-Semite and Jew does not lie
here; it is the portraits of the main characters that earry
the hook. Still, it seems worthwhile to suggest an alter-
native to Sartre's revolutionary transcendence, for his
position is likely to look, today, as mythical as the anti-
Semite's Jew-and as inauthentic. After all, what would
men and women be like after the end of social pluralism?
Perhaps Sartre believes that they will be simply and uni-
versally human. In fact, as the whole argument of his
book suggests, they will surely be French. And this will
represent a universal identity only in the sense that it
will be universally available to the Jews and to all other
non-French minorities. In every other sense, it will he a
historically particular identity, culturally rich, no doubt,
but not obviously richer or better than the identities it
supercedes. Sartre's conviction that minorities like the
Jews were eager to assimilate (in his very sense of
.
XXI
this word) has turned out to be wrong; indeed, it was
wrong at the time, in 1944, even if many individuals rec-
ognized themselves in his descriptions. Anti-Semite and
Jew provoked an angrily defensive response from commit-
ted Jewish intellectuals, despite Sarlre's sympathy not only
for their hut for them, as authentic Jews. rrhey could
not accept his insi&tence that they were, should be, and
could only be, heroic defenders of an empty Jewishness.
Even intellectuals heavily influenced by Sartre .. like
Albert Memmi, who wrote several hooks analyzinf!; the
"concrete negativity" of Jewish life in the diaspora, could
not themselves a Sartrean authentieity: "'"[0 affirm
my Jewishness without giving it a specific content,"
Memmi argued, "would have been an empty proposition
and in the final analysis contradictory" (The Liberation
of the Jew, 1966). And where could that eontent come
from except from 4'a cultural and relip;ious tradition ...
collective habits of and hehavior",!
engagement with the tradition and the habits was in large
part oppositional, but it still represented a denial of
argument about Jewish absence.
Nor could these Jewish intellectuals agree that their
role was circumscribed and of only tempo-
rary use. Memmi was a Zionist, that after
the revolution Jews would need a place of their own: Jew-
ish authenticity-self-affirmation and
..
XXII
-was possible only in a Jewish state. Other writers,
determined to find a place in France as well as in Israel,
argued for a pluralist society-the source, Sartre thought,
of all their troubles. They envisaged a permanent multi-
culturalism, an idea that was fully articulated only in the
much more radically pluralist United States, where the
co-existence of cultural (most importantly religious)
difference and common citizenship was figuratively rep-
resented by the "hyphenated" American. Characteristi-
cally, Sartre, who visited the United States in 1945 and
wrote The Respectful Prostitute immediately after, saw in
American pluralism only oppression and hatred: racism
was the anti-Semitism of the new world. He was not
entirely wrong, not then, not now. The (relative) success
of religious toleration in breaking the link between plu-
ralism and conflict has not yet been repeated for race and
ethnicity. But there seems no good reason not to try to
repeat it, given the value that people attach to their iden-
tity and culture.
Much can be learned, nonetheless, from Sartre's Marx-
ist/existentialist psychology. Identity and culture are not
timeless essences; they develop and change within his-
torical situations; and the self-perception of individuals
and groups is radically influenced by the (often hostile)
perceptions of the "others." All this is true. Sartre is very
good at alerting us to the interpersonal construction of
XXlll
personal identities-a process even more in evidence
today than when wrote. At the same
this eonstruelive aetivily draws on and the dif-
fprpnt huvp an
that never and the people they HUS-
tain .. who al!'to them. are not yet for
Nor .. indeed, ha:; anti-Semitism disappeared. Jf its new
forms are not accessihle to partieuJur of
.. they require an along
similar a seareh for people in trouhle., inea-
pahle of or with aetuul
of their diffieultie-b., for to blame. Some-
timeH inhabit the milieu
that Sarlrta hut (in eontenlporary
Eastern Europe" for pxamp(e) workers and and
(in the United members of the new
are more likely today than the-y were in 1944 to
4"authenlically'" to ""ith anti-
Semitism-that to affirm the value of their history and
But eontemporary response provide!; an
e-xample of what many Je\vs today would call
inauthenticity, though it is not clear that would
it as bueh: that is, the effort to
iue-ntity on the Holocaust Pfhis purely
to the most terrihle- work of eentury
.
XXI\'
anti-Semites, but the insistence on remembering this
work and identifying with its victims hardly represents
an "avenue of escape." Sartrean authentieity has taken
on new meanings, a sign simultaneou&ly that his argu-
ment is persuasive and that it is in need of revision.
Now that the revolution Sartre foresaw has been i ndef-
initely postponed, it is time to imap;ine a new drama in
which the actors live a little more comfortably in each
other's eyes ... and in their own. The aim of a concrete
liberalism, one would think, is to situations from
which an honorable escape is possihle--hut where it is
also possible to feel at home, to live with friends and rel-
atives, chosen and inherited, not only in traditional hut
also in innovative ways, in peaee. Rising rates of inter-
marriage and assimilation, which Sartre predicted would
follow naturally from any lifting of anti-Semitic pressure,
now stand in tension with developments he neither pre-
dicted nor could have understood: the institutional
strength of diaspora Jewish communities, the rise of Jew-
ish studies in universities throughout the Western world,
the revival of religious interest (if not of religious faith),
and a transnational solidarity that extends across the
diaspora as well as binding diaspora Jews to Israel.
Sartre's revolutionary transcendence looks today very
much like the long-imagined messianic age, around
which Jews over the centuries have constructed a set of
xxv
arguments whose thickness and complexity hardly fit his
version of their story. The arguments combine faith,
skepticism, worldly wit, and prudence. And at least some
of the commentators suggest a position that might fit a
chastened Sartreanism: while we wait for the unitary
world to come, since the wait is likely to he long, it is
urgently necessary and entirely possihle to repair and
improve the fragmented world, which is the only world
we have.*
-Michael Walzer
The Institute for Advanced Study
Princeton, NJ
January 1995
* I am grateful to Menachem Brinker and Mitchell Cohen for their
critical reading of an early draft of this preface .
.
XXVI

!

!



f a man attiibutes all oi pait of his own misfoitunes anu
those of his countiy to the piesence of }ewish elements
in the community, if he pioposes to iemeuy this state of
affaiis by uepiiving the }ews of ceitain of theii iights, by
keeping them out of ceitain economic anu social activities,
by expelling them fiom the countiy, by exteiminating all of
them, we say that he has anti-Semitic opinions.
This woiu opinion makes us stop anu think. It is the woiu
a hostess uses to biing to an enu a uiscussion that
thieatens to become aciimonious. It suggests that all
points of view aie equal; it ieassuies us, foi it gives an
inoffensive appeaiance to iueas by ieuucing them to the
level of tastes. All tastes aie natuial; all opinions aie
peimitteu. Tastes, colouis, anu opinions aie not open to
uiscussion. In the name of uemociatic institutions, in the
name of fieeuom of opinion, the anti-Semite asseits the
iight to pieach the anti-}ewish ciusaue eveiywheie.

At the same time, accustomeu as we have been since the
Revolution to look at eveiy object in an analytic spiiit, that
is to say, as a composite whose elements can be sepaiateu,
we look upon peisons anu chaiacteis as mosaics in which
each stone coexists with the otheis without that
coexistence affecting the natuie of the whole. Thus anti-
Semitic opinion appeais to us to be a molecule that can
entei into combination with othei molecules of any oiigin
I

#
whatsoevei without unueigoing any alteiation. A man
may be a goou fathei anu a goou husbanu, a conscientious
citizen, highly cultivateu, philanthiopic, #$4 in auuition an
anti-Semite. Be may like fishing anu the pleasuies of love,
may be toleiant in matteis of ieligion, full of geneious
notions on the conuition of the natives in Cential Afiica,
#$4 in auuition uetest the }ews. If he uoes not like them,
we say, it is because his expeiience has shown him that
they aie bau, because statistics have taught him that they
aie uangeious, because ceitain histoiical factois have
influenceu his juugment.
Thus this opinion seems to be the iesult of exteinal causes,
anu those who wish to stuuy it aie pione to neglect the
peisonality of the anti-Semite in favoui of a consiueiation
of the peicentage of }ews who weie mobilizeu in 1914, the
peicentage of }ews who aie bankeis, inuustiialists,
uoctois, anu lawyeis, oi an examination of the histoiy of
the }ews in Fiance since eaily times. They succeeu in
ievealing a stiictly objective situation that ueteimines an
equally objective cuiient of opinion, anu this they call anti-
Semitism, foi which they can uiaw up chaits anu ue-
teimine the vaiiations fiom 187u to 1944. In such wise
anti-Semitism appeais to be at once a subjective taste that
enteis into combination with othei tastes to foim a
peisonality, anu an impeisonal anu social phenomenon
which can be expiesseu by figuies anu aveiages, one which
is conuitioneu by economic, histoiical, anu political
constants.

I uo not say that these two conceptions aie necessaiily
contiauictoiy. I uo say that they aie uangeious anu false. I
woulu aumit, if necessaiy, that one may have an opinion on
the goveinment's policy in iegaiu to the wine inuustiy,
that is, that one may ueciue, -0) 5")*#/$ )"#10$16 eithei to
appiove oi conuemn the fiee impoitation of wine fiom

$
Algeiia: heie we have a case of holuing an opinion on the
auministiation of things. But I iefuse to chaiacteiize as
opinion a uoctiine that is aimeu uiiectly at paiticulai
peisons anu that seeks to suppiess theii iights oi to
exteiminate them. The }ew whom the anti-Semite wishes
to lay hanus upon is not a schematic being uefineu solely
by his function, as unuei auministiative law; oi by his
status oi his acts, as unuei the Coue. Be is a }ew, the son of
}ews, iecognizable by his physique, by the coloui of his
haii, by his clothing peihaps, anu, so they say, by his chai-
actei. Anti-Semitism uoes not fall within the categoiy of
iueas piotecteu by the iight of fiee opinion.
Inueeu, it is something quite othei than an iuea. It is fiist
of all a passion. No uoubt it can be set foith in the foim of a
theoietical pioposition. The "moueiate" anti-Semite is a
couiteous man who will tell you quietly: "Peisonally, I uo
not uetest the }ews. I simply finu it piefeiable, foi vaiious
ieasons, that they shoulu play a lessei pait in the activity
of the nation." But a moment latei, if you have gaineu his
confiuence, he will auu with moie abanuon: "You see, theie
must be something about the }ews; they upset me
physically."

This aigument, which I have heaiu a hunuieu times, is
woith examining. Fiist of all, it ueiives fiom the logic of
passion. Foi, ieally now, can we imagine anyone's saying
seiiously: "Theie must be something about tomatoes, foi I
have a hoiioi of eating them". In auuition, it shows us that
anti-Semitism in its most tempeiate anu most evolveu
foims iemains a syncietic whole which may be expiesseu
by statements of ieasonable tenoi, but which can involve
even bouily mouifications. Some men aie suuuenly stiuck
with impotence if they leain fiom the woman with whom
they aie making love that she is a }ewess. Theie is a
uisgust foi the }ew, just as theie is a uisgust foi the Chinese

%
oi the Negio among ceitain people. Thus it is not fiom the
bouy that the sense of iepulsion aiises, since one may love
a }ewess veiy well if one uoes not know what hei iace is;
iathei it is something that enteis the bouy fiom the minu.
It is an involvement of the minu, but one so ueep-seateu
anu complete that it extenus to the physiological iealm, as
happens in cases of hysteiia.
This involvement is not causeu by expeiience. I have
questioneu a hunuieu people on the ieasons foi theii anti-
Semitism. Nost of them have confineu themselves to
enumeiating the uefects with which tiauition has enuoweu
the }ews. "I uetest them because they aie selfish,
intiiguing, peisistent, oily, tactless, etc" - "But, at any iate,
you associate with some of them." - "Not if I can help it!" A
paintei saiu to me: "I am hostile to the }ews because, with
theii ciitical habits, they encouiage oui seivants to
insuboiuination." Beie aie examples a little moie piecise.
A young actoi without talent insisteu that the }ews hau
kept him fiom a successful caieei in the theatie by
confining him to suboiuinate ioles. A young woman saiu
to me: "I have hau the most hoiiible expeiiences with
fuiiieis; they iobbeu me, they buineu the fui I entiusteu to
them. Well, they weie all }ews." But why uiu she choose to
hate }ews iathei than fuiiieis. Why }ews oi fuiiieis
iathei than such anu such a }ew oi such anu such a
fuiiiei. Because she hau in hei a pieuisposition towaiu
anti-Semitism.

A classmate of mine at the lyce tolu me that }ews "annoy"
him because of the thousanus of injustices that "}ew-
iiuuen" social oiganizations commit in theii favoui. "A }ew
passeu his agigation the yeai I was faileu, anu you can't
make me believe that that fellow, whose fathei came fiom
Ciacow oi Lembeig, unueistoou a poem by Ronsaiu oi an
eclogue by viigil bettei than I." But he aumitteu that he

&
uisuaineu the #7),7#*/0$
1
as a meie acauemic exeicise, anu
that he uiun't stuuy foi it. Thus, to explain his failuie, he
maue use of two systems of inteipietation, like those
maumen who, when they aie fai gone in theii mauness,
pietenu to be the King of Bungaiy but, if questioneu
shaiply, aumit to being shoemakeis. Bis thoughts moveu
on two planes without his being in the least embaiiasseu
by it. As a mattei of fact, he will in time manage to justify
his past laziness on the giounus that it ieally woulu be too
stupiu to piepaie foi an examination in which }ews aie
passeu in piefeience to goou Fienchmen. Actually he
iankeu twenty-seventh on the official list. Theie weie
twenty-six aheau of him, twelve who passeu anu fouiteen
who faileu. Suppose }ews hau been excluueu fiom the
competition; woulu that have uone him any goou. Anu
even if he hau been at the top of the list of unsuccessful
canuiuates, even if by eliminating one of the successful
canuiuates he woulu have hau a chance to pass, why
shoulu the }ew Weil have been eliminateu iathei than the
Noiman Nathieu oi the Bieton Aizell.

To unueistanu my classmate's inuignation we must
iecognize that he hau auopteu in auvance a ceitain iuea of
the }ew, of his natuie anu of his iole in society. Anu to be
able to ueciue that among twenty-six competitois who
weie moie successful than himself, it was the }ew who
iobbeu him of his place, he must a piioii have given
piefeience in the conuuct of his life to ieasoning baseu on
passion. Fai fiom expeiience piouucing his iuea of the
}ew, it was the lattei which explaineu his expeiience. If the
}ew uiu not exist, the anti-Semite woulu invent him.


1
Competitive state teacheis' examination.

'
That may be so, you will say, but leaving the question of
expeiience to one siue, must we not aumit that anti-
Semitism is explaineu by ceitain histoiical uata. Foi aftei
all it uoes not come out of the aii. It woulu be easy foi me
to ieply that the histoiy of Fiance tells us nothing about
the }ews: they weie oppiesseu iight up to 1789; since then
they have paiticipateu as best they coulu in the life of the
nation, taking auvantage, natuially, of fieeuom of
competition to uisplace the weak, but no moie anu no less
than othei Fienchmen. They have committeu no ciimes
against Fiance, have engageu in no tieason. Anu if people
believe theie is pioof that the numbei of }ewish soluieis in
1914 was lowei than it shoulu have been, it is because
someone hau the cuiiosity to consult statistics. This is not
one of those facts which have the powei to stiike the
imagination by themselves; no soluiei in the tienches was
able on his own initiative to feel astonishment at not
seeing any }ews in the naiiow sectoi that constituteu his
univeise. Bowevei, since the infoimation that histoiy
gives on the iole of Isiael uepenus essentially on the
conception one has of histoiy, I think it woulu be bettei to
boiiow fiom a foieign countiy a manifest example of
"}ewish tieason" anu to calculate the iepeicussions this
"tieason" may have hau on contempoiaiy anti-Semitism.

In the couise of the bloouy Polish ievolts of the nineteenth
centuiy, the Waisaw }ews, whom the tsais hanuleu gently
foi ieasons of policy, weie veiy lukewaim towaiu the
iebels. By not taking pait in the insuiiection they weie
able to maintain anu impiove theii position in a countiy
iuineu by iepiession.
I uon't know whethei this is tiue oi not. What is ceitain is
that many Poles believe it, anu this "histoiical fact"
contiibutes not a little to theii bitteiness against the }ews.
But if I examine the mattei moie closely, I uiscovei a

()
vicious ciicle: The czais, we aie tolu, tieateu the Polish
}ews well wheieas they willingly oiueieu pogioms against
those in Russia. These shaiply uiffeient couises of action
hau the same cause. The Russian goveinment consiueieu
the }ews in both Russia anu Polanu to be inassimilable;
accoiuing to the neeus of theii policy, they hau them
massacieu at Noscow anu Kiev because they weie a
uangei to the Russian empiie, but favouieu them at
Waisaw as a means of stiiiing up uiscoiu among the
Poles. The lattei showeu nothing but hate anu scoin foi
the }ews of Polanu, but the ieason was the same: Foi them
Isiael coulu nevei become an integial pait of the national
collectivity. Tieateu as }ews by the tsai anu as }ews by the
Poles, pioviueu, quite in spite of themselves, with }ewish
inteiests in the miust of a foieign community, is it any
wonuei that these membeis of a minoiity behaveu in
accoiuance with the iepiesentation maue of them.

In shoit, the essential thing heie is not an "histoiical fact"
but the iuea that the agents of histoiy foimeu foi
themselves of the }ew. When the Poles of touay haiboui
iesentment against the }ews foi theii past conuuct, they
aie inciteu to it by that same iuea. If one is going to
iepioach little chiluien foi the sins of theii gianufatheis,
one must fiist of all have a veiy piimitive conception of
what constitutes iesponsibility. Fuitheimoie, one must
foim his conception of the chiluien on the basis of what the
gianupaients have been. 0ne must believe that what theii
elueis uiu the young aie capable of uoing. 0ne must
convince himself that }ewish chaiactei is inheiiteu. Thus
the Poles of 194u tieateu the Isiaelites in the community
as !"81 because theii ancestois in 1848 hau uone the same
with theii contempoiaiies. Peihaps this tiauitional
iepiesentation woulu, unuei othei ciicumstances, have
uisposeu the }ews of touay to act like those of 1848. It is

((
theiefoie the /4"# of the }ew that one foims foi himself
which woulu seem to ueteimine histoiy, not the "histoiical
fact" that piouuces the iuea.

People speak to us also of "social facts," but if we look at
this moie closely we shall finu the same vicious ciicle.
theie aie too many }ewish lawyeis, someone says. But is
theie any complaint that theie aie too many Noiman
lawyeis. Even if all the Bietons weie uoctois woulu we
say anything moie than that "Biittany pioviues uoctois foi
the whole of Fiance". 0h, someone will answei, it is not at
all the same thing. No uoubt, but that is piecisely because
we consiuei Noimans as Noimans anu }ews as }ews. Thus
wheievei we tuin it is the /4"# 0- *9" !"8 which seems to
be the essential thing.
It has become eviuent that no exteinal factoi can inuuce
anti-Semitism in the anti-Semite. Anti-Semitism is a fiee
anu total choice of oneself, a compiehensive attituue that
one auopts not only towaiu }ews, but towaiu men in
geneial, towaiu histoiy anu society; it is at one anu the
same time a passion anu a conception of the woilu. No
uoubt in the case of a given anti-Semite ceitain
chaiacteiistics will be moie maikeu than in anothei. But
they aie always all piesent at the same time, anu they
influence each othei. It is this syncietic totality which we
must now attempt to uesciibe.

I noteu eailiei that anti-Semitism is a passion. Eveiybouy
unueistanus that emotions of hate oi angei aie
involveu, but oiuinaiily hate anu angei have a piovocation:
I hate someone who has maue me suffei, someone who
conuemns oi insults me. We have just seen that anti-
Semitic passion coulu not have such a chaiactei. It
pieceues the facts that aie supposeu to call it foith; it seeks
them out to nouiish itself upon them; it must even

(*
inteipiet them in a special way so that they may become
tiuly offensive. Inueeu, if you so much as mention a }ew to
an anti-Semite, he will show all the signs of a lively
iiiitation. If we iecall that we must always consent to
angei befoie it can manifest itself anu that, as is inuicateu
so accuiately by the Fiench iuiom, we "put ouiselves" into
angei, we shall have to agiee that the anti-Semite has
5901"$ to live on the plane of passion. It is not unusual foi
people to elect to live a life of passion iathei than one of
ieason. But oiuinaiily they love the 0:;"5*1 of passion:
women, gloiy, powei, money. Since the anti-Semite has
chosen hate, we aie foiceu to concluue that it is the 1*#*" of
passion that he loves. 0iuinaiily this type of emotion is
'not veiy pleasant: a man who passionately uesiies a
woman is impassioneu because of the woman anu in spite
of his passion. We aie waiy of ieasoning baseu on passion,
seeking to suppoit by all possible means opinions which
love oi jealousy oi hate have uictateu. We aie waiy of the
abeiiations of passion anu of what is calleu mono-iueism.
But that is just what the anti-Semite chooses iight off.

Bow can one choose to ieason falsely. It is because of a
longing foi impenetiability. The iational man gioans as he
giopes foi the tiuth; he knows that his ieasoning is no
moie than tentative, that othei consiueiations may
supeivene to cast uoubt on it. Be nevei sees veiy cleaily
wheie he is going; he is "open"; he may even appeai to be
hesitant. But theie aie people who aie attiacteu by the
uuiability of a stone. They wish to be massive anu
impenetiable; they wish not to change. Wheie, inueeu,
woulu change take them. We have heie a basic feai of
oneself anu of tiuth. What fiightens them is not the
content of tiuth, of which they have no conception, but the
foim itself of tiuth, that thing of inuefinite appioximation.
It is as if theii own existence weie in continual suspension.

(+
But they wish to exist all at once anu iight away. They uo
not want any acquiieu opinions; they want them to be
innate. Since they aie afiaiu of ieasoning, they wish to
wau the kinu of life wheiein ieasoning anu ieseaich play
only a suboiuinate iole, wheiein one seeks only what be
has alieauy founu, wheiein one becomes only what he
alieauy was. This is nothing but passion. 0nly a stiong
emotional bias can give a lightning-like ceitainty; it alone
can holu ieason in leash; it alone can iemain impeivious to
expeiience anu last foi a whole lifetime.

The anti-Semite has chosen hate because hate is a faith; at
the outset he has chosen to uevaluate woius anu ieasons.
Bow entiiely at ease he feels as a iesult. Bow futile anu
fiivolous uiscussions about the iights of the }ew appeai to
him. Be has placeu himself on othei giounu fiom the
beginning. If out of couitesy he consents foi a moment to
uefenu his point of view, he lenus himself but uoes not give
himself. Be tiies simply to pioject his intuitive ceitainty
onto the plane of uiscouise. I mentioneu awhile back some
iemaiks by anti-Semites, all of them absuiu: "I hate }ews
because they make seivants insuboiuinate, because a
}ewish fuiiiei iobbeu me, "*5." Nevei believe that anti-
Semites aie completely unawaie of the absuiuity of theii
ieplies. They know that theii iemaiks aie fiivolous, open
to challenge. But they aie amusing themselves, foi it is
theii auveisaiy who is obligeu to use woius iesponsibly,
since he believes in woius. The anti-Semites have the iight
to play. They even like to play with uiscouise foi, by giving
iiuiculous ieasons, they uiscieuit the seiiousness of theii
inteilocutois. They uelight in acting in bau faith, since they
seek not to peisuaue by sounu aigument but to intimiuate
anu uisconceit. If you piess them too closely, they will
abiuptly fall silent, loftily inuicating by some phiase that
the time foi aigument is past. It is not that they aie afiaiu

(!
of being convinceu. They feai only to appeai iiuiculous oi
to piejuuice by theii embaiiassment theii hope of winning
ovei some thiiu peison to theii siue.

If then, as we have been able to obseive, the anti-Semite is
impeivious to ieason anu to expeiience, it is not because
his conviction is stiong. Rathei his conviction is stiong
because he has chosen fiist of all to be impeivious.
Be has chosen also to be teiiifying. People aie afiaiu of
iiiitating him. No one knows to what lengths the
abeiiations of his passion will caiiy him but be knows,
foi this passion is not piovokeu by something exteinal. Be
has it well in hanu; it is obeuient to his will: now he lets go
of the ieins anu now he pulls back on them. Be is not
afiaiu of himself, but he sees in the eyes of otheis a
uisquieting image-his own-anu he makes his woius anu
gestuies confoim to it. Baving this exteinal mouel, he is
unuei no necessity to look foi his peisonality within
himself. Be has chosen to finu his being entiiely outsiue
himself, nevei to look within, to be nothing save the feai he
inspiies in otheis.
What he flees even moie than Reason is his intimate
awaieness of himself. But someone will object: What if he
is like that only with iegaiu to the }ews. What if he
otheiwise conuucts himself with goou sense. I ieply that
that is impossible. Theie is the case of a fishmongei who,
in 1942, annoyeu by the competition of two }ewish
fishmongeis who weie concealing theii iace, one fine uay
took pen in hanu anu uenounceu them. I have been
assuieu that this fishmongei was in othei iespects a milu
anu jovial man, the best of sons. But I uon't believe it. A
man who finus it entiiely natuial to uenounce othei men
cannot have oui conception of humanity; he uoes not see
even those whom be aius in the same light as we uo. Bis

(#
geneiosity, his kinuness aie not like oui kinuness, oui
geneiosity. You cannot confine passion to one spheie.

The anti-Semite ieauily aumits that the }ew is intelligent
anu haiu-woiking; he will even confess himself infeiioi in
these iespects. This concession costs him nothing, foi he
has, as it weie, put those qualities in paientheses. 0i
iathei they ueiive theii value fiom the one who possesses
them: the moie viitues the }ew has the moie uangeious he
will be. The anti-Semite has no illusions about what he is.
Be consiueis himself an aveiage man, mouestly aveiage,
basically meuiocie. Theie is no example of an anti-
Semite's claiming inuiviuual supeiioiity ovei the }ews. But
you must not think that he is ashameu of his meuiociity; he
takes pleasuie in it; I will even asseit that he has chosen it.
This man feais eveiy kinu of solitaiiness, that of the genius
as much as that of the muiueiei; he is the man of the
ciowu. Bowevei small his statuie, he takes eveiy
piecaution to make it smallei, lest he stanu out fiom the
heiu anu finu himself face to face with himself. Be has
maue himself an anti-Semite because that is something one
cannot be alone. The phiase, "I hate the }ews," is one that
is utteieu in choius; in pionouncing it, one attaches
himself to a tiauition anu to a community the tiauition
anu community of the meuiocie.

We must iemembei that a man is not necessaiily humble
oi even mouest because he has consenteu to meuiociity.
0n the contiaiy, theie is a passionate piiue among the
meuiocie, anu anti-Semitism is an attempt to give value to
meuiociity as such, to cieate an elite of the oiuinaiy. To
the anti-Semite, intelligence is }ewish; he can thus uisuain
it in all tianquillity, like all the othei viitues which the }ew
possesses. They aie so many eisatz attiibutes that the }ew
cultivates in place of that balanceu meuiociity which he

($
will nevei have. The tiue Fienchman, iooteu in his
piovince, in his countiy, boine along by a tiauition twenty
centuiies olu, benefiting fiom ancestial wisuom, guiueu by
tiieu customs, uoes not neeu intelligence. Bis viitue
uepenus upon the assimilation of the qualities which the
woik of a hunuieu geneiations has lent to the objects
which suiiounu him; it uepenus on piopeity. It goes
without saying that this is a mattei of inheiiteu piopeity,
not piopeity one buys. The anti-Semite has a funuamental
incompiehension of the vaiious foims of mouein piopeity:
money, secuiities, etc. These aie abstiactions, entities of
ieason ielateu to the abstiact intelligence of the Semite. A
secuiity belongs to no one because it can belong to
eveiyone; moieovei, it is a sign of wealth, not a conciete
possession. The anti-Semite can conceive only of a type of
piimitive owneiship of lanu baseu on a veiitable magical
iappoit, in which the thing possesseu anu its possessoi aie
uniteu by a bonu of mystical paiticipation; he is the poet of
ieal piopeity. It tiansfiguies the piopiietoi anu enuows
him with a special anu conciete sensibility. To be suie, this
sensibility ignoies eteinal tiuths oi univeisal values: the
univeisal is }ewish, since it is an object of intelligence.

What his subtle sense seizes upon is piecisely that which
the intelligence cannot peiceive. To put it anothei way, the
piinciple unueilying anti-Semitism is that the conciete
possession of a paiticulai object gives as if by magic the
meaning of that object. Nauiias saiu the same thing when
he ueclaieu a }ew to be foievei incapable of unueistanuing
this line of Racine: <#$1 '=>)/"$* 4,1")*6 ?&"' 4"3/$* @0$
"$$&/A
B


2
Binice.

(%
But the way is open to me, meuiocie me, to unueistanu
what the most subtle, the most cultivateu intelligence has
been unable to giasp. Why. Because I possess Racine -
Racine anu my countiy anu my soil. Peihaps the }ew
speaks a puiei Fiench than I uo, peihaps he knows syntax
anu giammai bettei, peihaps he is even a wiitei. No
mattei; he has spoken this language foi only twenty yeais,
anu I foi a thousanu yeais. The coiiectness of his style is
abstiact, acquiieu; my faults of Fiench aie in confoimity
with the genius of the language. We iecognize heie the
ieasoning that Baiies useu against the holueis of
scholaiships. Theie is no occasion foi suipiise. Bon't the
}ews have all the scholaiships. All that intelligence, all that
money can acquiie one leaves to them, but it is as
empty as the winu. The only things that count aie
iiiational values, anu it is just these things which aie
uenieu the }ews foievei. Thus the anti-Semite takes his
stanu fiom the stait on the giounu of iiiationalism. Be is
opposeu to the }ew, just as sentiment is to intelligence, the
paiticulai to the univeisal, the past to the piesent, the
conciete to the abstiact, the ownei of ieal piopeity to the
possessoi of negotiable secuiities.

Besiues this, many anti-Semites the majoiity, peihaps
belong to the lowei miuule class of the towns; they aie
functionaiies, office woikeis, small businessmen, who
possess nothing. It is in opposing themselves to the }ew
that they suuuenly become conscious of being piopiietois:
in iepiesenting the }ew as a iobbei, they put themselves in
the enviable position of people who coulu be iobbeu. Since
the }ew wishes to take Fiance fiom them, it follows that
Fiance must belong to them. Thus they have chosen anti-
Semitism as a means of establishing theii status as
possessois. The }ew has moie money than they. So much
the bettei: money is }ewish, anu they can uespise it as they

(&
uespise intelligence. They own less than the gentleman-
faimei of Piigoiu oi the laige-scale faimei of the
Beauce. That uoesn't mattei. All they have to uo is
nouiish a vengeful angei against the iobbeis of Isiael anu
they feel at once in possession of the entiie countiy. Tiue
Fienchmen, goou Fienchmen aie all equal, foi each of
them possesses foi himself alone Fiance whole anu inui-
visible.

Thus I woulu call anti-Semitism a pooi man's snobbeiy.
Anu in fact it woulu appeai that the iich foi the most pait
exploit this passion foi theii own uses iathei than abanuon
themselves to it they have bettei things to uo. It is
piopagateu mainly among the miuule classes, because they
possess neithei lanu noi house noi castle, having only
some ieauy cash anu a few secuiities in the bank. It was
not by chance that the petty bouigeoisie of ueimany was
anti-Semitic in 192S. The piincipal concein of this "white-
collai pioletaiiat" was to uistinguish itself fiom the ieal
pioletaiiat. Ruineu by big inuustiy, bamboozleu by the
}unkeis, it was nonetheless to the }unkeis anu the gieat
inuustiialists that its whole heait went out. It went in foi
anti-Semitism with the same enthusiasm that it went in foi
weaiing bouigeois uiess: :"5#&1" the woikeis weie
inteinationalists, because the }unkeis possesseu ueimany
anu it wisheu to possess it also. Anti-Semitism is not
meiely the joy of hating; it biings positive pleasuies too.
By tieating the }ew as an infeiioi anu peinicious being, I
affiim at the same time that I belong to the elite. This elite,
in contiast to those of mouein times which aie baseu on
meiit oi laboui, closely iesembles an aiistociacy of biith.
Theie is nothing I have to uo to meiit my supeiioiity, anu
neithei can I lose it. It is given once anu foi all. It is a
*9/$7.

('
We must not confuse this pieceuence the anti-Semite
enjoys by viitue of his piinciples with inuiviuual meiit.
The anti-Semite is not too anxious to possess inuiviuual
meiit. Neiit has to be sought, just like tiuth; it is
uiscoveieu with uifficulty; one must ueseive it. 0nce
acquiieu, it is peipetually in question: a false step, an eiioi,
anu it flies away. Without iespite, fiom the beginning of
oui lives to the enu, we aie iesponsible foi what meiit we
enjoy. Now the anti-Semite flees iesponsibility as he flees
his own consciousness, anu choosing foi his peisonality
the peimanence of iock, he chooses foi his moiality a scale
of petiifieu values. Whatevei he uoes, he knows that he
will iemain at the top of the lauuei; whatevei the }ew uoes,
he will nevei get any highei than the fiist iung.

We begin to peiceive the meaning of the anti-Semite's
choice of himself. Be chooses the iiiemeuiable out of feai
of being fiee; he chooses meuiociity out of feai of being
alone, anu out of piiue he makes of this iiiemeuiable
meuiociity a iigiu aiistociacy. To this enu he finus the
existence of the }ew absolutely necessaiy 0theiwise to
whom woulu he be supeiioi. Inueeu, it is vis--vis the }ew
anu the }ew alone that the anti-Semite iealizes that he has
iights. If by some miiacle all the }ews weie exteiminateu
as he wishes, he woulu finu himself nothing but a concieige
oi a shopkeepei in a stiongly hieiaichical society in which
the quality of "tiue Fienchman" woulu be at a low
valuation, because eveiyone woulu possess it. Be woulu
lose his sense of iights ovei the countiy because no one
woulu any longei contest them, anu that piofounu equality
which biings him close to the nobleman anu the man of
wealth woulu uisappeai all of a suuuen, foi it is piimaiily
negative. Bis fiustiations, which he has attiibuteu to the
uisloyal competition of the }ew, woulu have to be imputeu
to some othei cause, lest he be foiceu to look within

*)
himself. Be woulu iun the iisk of falling into bitteiness,
into a melancholy hatieu of the piivilegeu classes. Thus
the anti-Semite is in the unhappy position of having a vital
neeu foi the veiy enemy he wishes to uestioy.

The equalitaiianism that the anti-Semite seeks with so
much aiuoui has nothing in common with that equality
insciibeu in the cieeu of the uemociacies. The lattei is to
be iealizeu in a society that is economically hieiaichical,
anu is to iemain compatible with a uiveisity of functions.
But it is in piotest #7#/$1* the hieiaichy of functions that
the anti-Semite asseits the equality of Aiyans. Be uoes not
unueistanu anything about the uivision of laboui anu
uoesn't caie about it. Fiom his point of view each citizen
can claim the title of Fiench. man, not because he co-
opeiates, in his place oi in his occupation, with otheis in
the economic, social, anu cultuial life of the nation, but
because be has, in the same way as eveiybouy else, an
impiesciiptible anu inboin iight to the inuivisible totality
of the countiy. Thus the society that the anti-Semite
conceives of is a society of juxtaposition, as one can veiy
well imagine, since his iueal of piopeity is that of ieal anu
basic piopeity. Since, in point of fact, anti-Semites aie nu-
meious, each of them uoes his pait in constituting a
community baseu on mechanical soliuaiity in the heait of
oiganizeu society.

The uegiee of integiation of each anti-Semite with this
society, as well as the uegiee of his equality, is fixeu by
what I shall call the tempeiatuie of the community. Pioust
has shown, foi example, how anti-Semitism biought the
uuke closei to his coachman, how, thanks to theii hatieu of
Bieyfus, bouigeois families foiceu the uoois of the
aiistociacy. The equalitaiian society that the anti-Semite
believes in is like that of mobs oi those instantaneous

*(
societies which come into being at a lynching oi uuiing a
scanual. Equality in them is the piouuct of the non-
uiffeientiation of functions. The social bonu is angei; the
collectivity has no othei goal than to exeicise ovei ceitain
inuiviuuals a uiffuseu iepiessive sanction. Collective
impulsions anu steieotypes aie imposeu on inuiviuuals all
the moie stiongly because none of them is uefenueu by
any specializeu function. Thus the peison is uiowneu in
the ciowu, anu the ways of thinking anu ieacting of the
gioup aie of a puiely piimitive type. 0f couise, such
collectivities uo not spiing solely fiom anti-Semitism; an
upiising, a ciime, an injustice can cause them to bieak out
suuuenly. But those aie ephemeial foimations which soon
vanish without leaving any tiace.

Since anti-Semitism suivives the gieat ciises of }ew-hatieu,
the society which the anti-Semites foim iemains in a latent
state uuiing noimal peiious, with eveiy anti-Semite
celebiating its existence. Incapable of unueistanuing
mouein social oiganization, he has a nostalgia foi peiious
of ciisis in which the piimitive community will suuuenly
ieappeai anu attain its tempeiatuie of fusion. Be wants
his peisonality to melt suuuenly into the gioup anu be
caiiieu away by the collective toiient. Be has this
atmospheie of the pogiom in minu when he asseits "the
union of all Fienchmen." In this sense anti-Semitism is, in
a uemociacy, a coveit foim of what is calleu the stiuggle of
the citizen against authoiity. Question any one of those
tuibulent young men who placiuly bieak the law anu banu
togethei to beat up a }ew in a ueseiteu stieet: Be will tell
you that he wants a stiong authoiity to take fiom him the
ciushing iesponsibility of thinking foi himself. Since the
Republic is weak, he is leu to bieak the law out of love of
obeuience. But is it ieally stiong authoiity that he wishes.
In ieality he uemanus iigoious oiuei foi otheis, anu foi

**
himself uisoiuei without iesponsibility. Be wishes to
place himself above the law, at the same time escaping
fiom the, consciousness of his libeity anu his isolation. Be
theiefoie makes use of a subteifuge: The }ews take pait in
elections; theie aie }ews in the goveinment; theiefoie the
legal powei is vitiateu at its base. As a mattei of fact, it no
longei exists, so it is legitimate to ignoie its ueciees.
Consequently theie is no uisobeuience-one cannot uisobey
what uoes not exist. Thus foi the anti-Semite theie is a ieal
Fiance with a goveinment ieal but uiffuseu anu without
special oigans, anu an abstiact Fiance, official, }ew-iiuuen,
against which it is piopei to iebel.

Natuially this peimanent iebellion is the act of a gioup; the
anti-Semite woulu unuei no ciicumstances uaie to act oi
think on his own. Anu the gioup woulu be unable to
conceive of itself as a minoiity paity, foi a minoiity paity is
obligeu to uevise a piogiam anu to ueteimine on a line of
political action, all of which implies initiative,
iesponsibility, anu libeity. Anti-Semitic associations uo
not wish to invent anything; they iefuse to assume
iesponsibility; they woulu be hoiiifieu at setting
themselves up as a ceitain fiaction of Fiench opinion, foi
then they woulu have to uiaw up a piogiam anu seek legal
means of action. They piefei to iepiesent themselves as
expiessing in all puiity, in all passivity, the sentiments of
the ieal countiy in its inuivisible state.

Any anti-Semite is theiefoie, in vaiying uegiee, the enemy
of constituteu authoiity. Be wishes to be the uisciplineu
membei of an unuisciplineu gioup; he auoies oiuei, but a
social oiuei. We might say that he wishes to piovoke
political uisoiuei in oiuei to iestoie social oiuei, the social
oiuei in his eyes being a society that, by viitue of
juxtaposition, is egalitaiian anu piimitive, one with a

*+
heighteneu tempeiatuie, one fiom which }ews aie
excluueu. These piinciples enable him to enjoy a stiange
soit of inuepenuence, which I shall call an inveiteu libeity.
Authentic libeity assumes iesponsibilities, anu the libeity
of the anti-Semite comes fiom the fact that he escapes all of
his. Floating between an authoiitaiian society which has
not yet come into existence anu an official anu toleiant
society which he uisavows, he can uo anything he pleases
without appeaiing to be an anaichist, which woulu hoiiify
him. The piofounu seiiousness of his aims which no
woiu, no statement, no act can expiess peimits him a
ceitain fiivolity. Be is a hooligan, he beats people up, he
uiges, he iobs; it is all in a goou cause. If the goveinment is
stiong, anti-Semitism witheis, unless it be a pait of the
piogiam of the goveinment itself, in which case it changes
its natuie. Enemy of the }ews, the anti-Semite has neeu of
them. Anti-uemociatic, he is a natuial piouuct of
uemociacies anu can only manifest himself within the
fiamewoik of the Republic.

We begin to unueistanu that anti-Semitism is moie than a
meie "opinion" about the }ews anu that it involves the
entiie peisonality of the anti-Semite. But we have not yet
finisheu with him, foi he uoes not confine himself to
fuinishing moial anu political uiiectives: be has a methou
of thought anu a conception of the woilu all his own. In
fact, we cannot state what be affiims without implicit
iefeience to ceitain intellectual piinciples.
The }ew, he says, is completely bau, completely a }ew. Bis
viitues, if he has any, tuin to vices by ieason of the fact that
they aie his; woik coming fiom his hanus necessaiily beais
his stigma. If he builus a biiuge, that biiuge, being }ewish,
is bau fiom the fiist to the last span. The same action
caiiieu out by a }ew anu by a Chiistian uoes not have the
same meaning in the two cases, foi the }ew contaminates

*!
all that he touches with an I-know-not-what execiable
quality. The fiist thing the ueimans uiu was to foibiu }ews
access to swimming pools; it seemeu to them that if the
bouy of an Isiaelite weie to plunge into that confin6u bouy
of watei, the watei woulu be completely befouleu. Stiictly
speaking, the }ew contaminates even the aii he bieathes.

If we attempt to foimulate in abstiact teims the piinciple
to which the anti-Semite appeals, it woulu come to this: A
whole is moie anu othei than the sum of its paits; a whole
ueteimines the meaning anu unueilying chaiactei of the
paits that make it up. Theie is not 0$" viitue of couiage
which enteis inuiffeiently into a }ewish chaiactei oi a
Chiistian chaiactei in the way that oxygen inuiffeiently
combines with nitiogen anu aigon to foim aii anu with
hyuiogen to foim watei. Each peison is an inuivisible
totality that has its own couiage, its own geneiosity, its
own way of thinking, laughing, uiinking, anu eating.

What is theie to say except that the anti-Semite has chosen
to fall back on the spiiit of synthesis in oiuei to
unueistanu the woilu. It is the spiiit of synthesis which
peimits him to conceive of himself as foiming an
inuissoluble unity with all Fiance. It is in the name of this
spiiit that he uenounces the puiely analytical anu ciitical
intelligence of the }ews. But we must be moie piecise. Foi
some time, on the Right anu on the Left, among the
tiauitionalists anu among the socialists, it has been the
fashion to make appeal to synthetic piinciples as against
the spiiit of analysis which piesiueu ovei the founuation of
bouigeois uemociacy. Yet both siues cannot be saiu to act
on the same piinciples, oi, if they uo, they ceitainly make a
uiffeient use of them. What use uoes the anti-Semite make
of these piinciples. We finu scaicely any anti-Semitism
among woikeis.

*#
It is absuiu to answei that that is because theie aie no
}ews in theii ianks. Suppose the fact allegeu weie tiue;
that is piecisely what they woulu have to complain of. The
Nazis knew it veiy well, foi when they wisheu to extenu
theii piopaganua to the pioletaiiat, they launcheu the
slogan of "}ewish capitalism." The woiking class uoes,
howevei, think about the social situation synthetically,
only it uoes not use the methous of the anti-Semites. It
sees ensembles in teims of economic functions. The
bouigeoisie, the peasant class, the pioletaiiat those aie
the synthetic iealities with which it is conceineu, anu in
those complexes it uistinguishes seconuaiy synthetic
stiuctuies laboui unions, employeis' associations,
tiusts, caitels, paities. Thus the explanations it gives foi
histoiical phenomena aie founu to agiee peifectly with the
uiffeientiateu stiuctuie of a society baseu on uivision of
laboui. Bistoiy, as the woiking class sees it, is the iesult of
the play of economic oiganisms anu the inteiaction of
synthetic gioups.
The majoiity of the anti-Semites, on the contiaiy, belongs
to the miuule class, that is, among men who have a level of
life equal oi supeiioi to that of the }ews, oi, if you piefei,
among the "non-piouuceis" (employeis, meichants,
uistiibutois, membeis of the libeial piofessions,
paiasites). The bouigeois in fact 40"1 $0* C)04&5"D he
uiiects, auministeis, uistiibutes, buys, sells. Bis function is
to entei into uiiect ielations with the consumei; in othei
woius, his activity is baseu on a constant commeice with
men, wheieas the woikei, in the exeicise of his tiaue, is in
peimanent contact with things. Each man juuges histoiy in
accoiuance with the piofession that he follows. Shapeu by
the uaily influence of the mateiials he woiks with, the
woikman sees society as the piouuct of ieal foices acting
in accoiuance with iigoious laws. Bis uialectical "mateiial-
ism" signifies that he envisages the social woilu in the

*$
same way as the mateiial woilu. 0n the othei hanu, the
bouigeois anu the anti-Semite in paiticulai have
chosen to explain histoiy by the action of inuiviuual wills.
Bo not the bouigeois uepenu on these same wills in the
conuuct of theii affaiis.
S
They behave towaiu social facts
like piimitives who enuow the winu anu the sun with little
souls. Intiigues, cabals, the peifiuy of one man, the
couiage anu viitue of anothei that is what ueteimines
the couise of theii business, that is what ueteimines the
couise of the woilu.
Anti-Semitism, a bouigeois phenomenon, appeais
theiefoie as a choice maue to explain collective events by
the initiative of inuiviuuals. No uoubt the pioletaiian
caiicatuies "the bouigeois" on posteis anu in newspapeis
in exactly the same mannei as the anti-Semite caiicatuies
"the }ew."'
But this exteinal iesemblance shoulu not ueceive us. To
the woikei, what constitutes the bouigeois is his bouigeois
status, that is, an ensemble of exteinal factois; anu the
bouigeois himself is ieuucible to the synthetic unity of
these exteinally appaient manifestations. It is an
ensemble of vaiious moues of :"9#3/0&)A Foi the anti-
Semite, what makes the }ew is the piesence in him of
"}ewishness," a }ewish piinciple analogous to phlogiston oi
the sopoiific viitue of opium. We must not be ueceiveu:
explanations on the basis of heieuity anu iace came latei;
they aie the slenuei scientific coating of this piimitive
conviction. Long befoie Nenuel anu uobineau theie was a
hoiioi of the }ew, anu those who felt it coulu not explain it
except by saying, like Nontaigne of his fiienuship foi La

S
I make an exception heie of the engineei, the contiactoi, anu the
scientist, whose occupations biing them closei to the pioletaiiat, anu
who in fact aie infiequently anti-Semitic.

*%
Botie: "Because he is he, because I am I." Without the
piesence of this metaphysical essence, the activities
asciibeu to the }ew woulu be entiiely incompiehensible.
Inueeu, how coulu we conceive of the obstinate folly of a
iich }ewish meichant who, we aie tolu, makes eveiy effoit
to iuin his countiy, wheieas if he weie ieasonable, he
woulu uesiie the piospeiity of the countiy in which he
uoes business. Bow coulu we otheiwise unueistanu the
evil inteinationalism of men whom theii families, theii
affections, theii habits, theii inteiests, the natuie anu
souice of theii foitunes shoulu attach to the uestiny of a
paiticulai countiy.

Facile talkeis speak of a }ewish will to uominate the woilu.
Beie again, if we uiu not have the key, the manifestations
of this will woulu ceitainly be unintelligible to us. We aie
tolu in almost the same bieath that behinu the }ew luiks
inteinational capitalism anu the impeiialism of the tiusts
anu the munitions makeis, anu that he is the fiont man foi
piiatical Bolshevism with a knife between its teeth. Theie
is no embaiiassment oi hesitation about imputing
iesponsibility foi communism to }ewish bankeis, whom it
woulu hoiiify, oi iesponsibility foi capitalist impeiialism
to the wietcheu }ews who ciowu the iue ues Rosieis. But
eveiything is maue cleai if we ienounce any expectation
fiom the }ew of a couise of conuuct that is ieasonable anu
in confoimity with his inteiests, if, insteau, we uiscein in
him a metaphysical piinciple that uiives him *0 40 "3/'
unuei all ciicumstances, even though he theieby uestioy
himself. This piinciple, one may suspect, is magical. 0n
the one hanu, it is an essence, a substantial foim, anu the
}ew, whatevei he uoes, cannot mouify it, any moie than fiie
can keep itself fiom buining. 0n the othei banu, it is
necessaiy in oiuei to be able to hate the }ew-foi one uoes
not hate natuial phenomena like eaithquakes anu plagues

*&
of locusts-that it also have the viitue of fieeuom. 0nly the
fieeuom in question is caiefully limiteu: The }ew is fiee *0
40 "3/'6 not goou; he has only as much fiee will as is
necessaiy foi him to take full iesponsibility foi the ciimes
of which he is the authoi; he uoes not have enough to be
able to achieve a iefoimation. Stiange libeity, which
insteau of pieceuing anu constituting the essence, iemains
suboiuinate to it, is only an iiiational quality of it, anu yet
iemains libeity.

Theie is only one cieatuie, to my knowleuge, who is thus
totally fiee anu yet chaineu to evil; that is the Spiiit of Evil
himself, Satan. Thus the }ew is assimilable to the spiiit of
evil. Bis will, unlike the Kantian will, is one which wills
itself puiely, giatuitously, anu univeisally to be evil. It is
*9" will to evil. Thiough him Evil aiiives on the eaith. All
that is bau in society (ciises, wais, famines, upheavals, anu
ievolts) is uiiectly oi inuiiectly imputable to him. The
anti-Semite is afiaiu of uiscoveiing that the woilu is ill-
contiiveu, foi then it woulu be necessaiy foi him to invent
anu mouify, with the iesult that man woulu be founu to be
the mastei of his own uestinies, buiueneu with an
agonizing anu infinite iesponsibility. Thus he localizes all
the evil of the univeise in the }ew. If nations wai with each
othei, the conflict uoes not aiise fiom the fact that the iuea
of nationality, in its piesent foim, implies impeiialism anu
the clash of inteiests. No, it is because the }ew is theie,
behinu the goveinments, bieathing uiscoiu. If theie is a
class stiuggle, it is not because the economic oiganization
leaves something to be uesiieu. It is because }ewish
uemagogues, hook-noseu agitatois, have seuuceu the
woikeis.

Anti-Semitism is thus seen to be at bottom a foim of
Nanichaeism. It explains the couise of the woilu by the

*'
stiuggle of the piinciple of uoou with the piinciple of Evil.
Between these two piinciples no ieconciliation is
conceivable; one of them must tiiumph anu the othei be
annihilateu. Look at C1ine: his vision of the univeise is
catastiophic. The }ew is eveiywheie, the eaith is lost, it is
up to the Aiyan not to compiomise, nevei to make peace.
Yet he must be on his guaiu: if he bieathes, he has alieauy
lost his puiity, foi the veiy aii that penetiates his bionchial
tubes is contaminateu. Boes that not ieau like a uiatiibe
by a Nanichaean. If Cline suppoiteu the socialist theses
of the Nazis, it was because he was paiu to uo so. At the
bottom of his heait he uiu not believe in them. Foi him
theie is no solution except collective suiciue, non-
iepiouuction, ueath. 0theis Nauiias oi the P.P.F.
4

aie less uiscouiaging. They envisage a long anu often
uoubtful stiuggle, with the final tiiumph of uoou. It is
0imazu against Ahiiman. The ieauei unueistanus that the
anti-Semite uoes not have iecouise to Nanichaeism as a
seconuaiy piinciple of explanation. It is the oiiginal choice
he makes of Nanichaeism which explains anu conuitions
anti-Semitism. We must theiefoie ask ouiselves what this
oiiginal choice can mean foi a man of touay.

Let us compaie foi a moment the ievolutionaiy iuea of the
class stiuggle with the Nanichaeism of the anti-Semite. In
the eyes of the Naixist, the class stiuggle is in no sense a
stiuggle between uoou anu Evil; it is a conflict of inteiests
between human gioups. The ieason why the ievolutionaiy
auopts the point of view of the pioletaiiat is, fiist of all,
because it is 9/1 08$ class, then because it is oppiesseu,
because it is by fai the most numeious anu consequently
involves the fate of mankinu in its own uestiny, finally

4
Paiti Populaiie Fianais.

+)
because the iesults of its victoiy will necessaiily incluue
the abolition of the class stiuctuie. The goal of the
ievolutionaiy is to change the oiganization of society. To
uo that it will no uoubt be necessaiy to uestioy the olu
iegime. But that will not be sufficient; above all it will be
necessaiy to builu a new oiuei. If by some impossible
chance the piivilegeu class weie willing to co-opeiate in
the socialist ieconstiuction anu gave cleai pioofs of its
goou faith, theie woulu be no valiu ieason foi iepulsing it.

If it is highly impiobable that it will offei its suppoit to the
socialists in goou faith, it is because its veiy situation as a
piivilegeu class pievents it fiom uoing so, not because of
some inuefinable inteiioi uemon which impels it to uo evil
in its own uespite. In any case, if poitions of this class
bieak away fiom it, they can be constantly assimilateu to
the oppiesseu class, anu they will be juugeu by theii acts,
not by theii essence. "I uon't give a uamn foi youi eteinal
essence," Politzei tolu me one uay. 0n the othei hanu, the
Nanichaean anti-Semite puts his emphasis on uestiuction.
What he sees is not a conflict of inteiests but the uamage
which an evil powei causes society. Theiefoie uoou
consists above all in the uestiuction of Evil. 0nueineath
the bitteiness of the anti-Semite is concealeu the optimistic
belief that haim only will be ie-establisheu of itself, once
Evil is eliminateu. Bis task is theiefoie puiely negative:
theie is no question of builuing a new society, but only of
puiifying the one which exists. In the attainment of this
goal the co-opeiation of }ews of goou will woulu be useless
anu even fatal, anu anyhow no }ew coulu be a man of goou
will. Knight-eiiant of the uoou, the anti-Semite is a holy
man. The }ew also is holy in his mannei holy like the
untouchables, like savages unuei the inteiuict of a taboo.
Thus the conflict is iaiseu to a ieligious plane, anu the enu
of the combat can be nothing othei than a holy uestiuction.

+(
The auvantages of this position aie many. To begin with, it
favouis laziness of minu. We have seen that the anti-
Semite unueistanus nothing about mouein society. Be
woulu be incapable of conceiving of a constiuctive plan; his
action cannot ieach the level of the methouical; it iemains
on the giounu of passion. To a long-teim enteipiise he
piefeis an explosion of iage analogous to the iunning
amuck of the Nalays. Bis intellectual activity is confineu to
/$*")C)"*#*/0$E he seeks in histoiical events the signs of the
piesence of an evil powei. 0ut of this spiing those chiluish
anu elaboiate fabiications which give him his iesemblance
to the extieme paianoiacs. In auuition, anti-Semitism
channels evolutionaiy uiives towaiu the uestiuction of
ceitain men, not of institutions. An anti-Semitic mob will
consiuei it has uone enough when it has massacieu some
}ews anu buineu a few synagogues. It iepiesents,
theiefoie, a safety valve foi the owning classes, who
encouiage it anu thus substitute foi a uangeious hate
against theii iegime a beneficent hate against paiticulai
people.
Above all this naive uualism is eminently ieassuiing to he
anti-Semite himself. If all he has to uo is to iemove Evil,
that means that the uoou is alieauy 7/3"$A Be has no neeu
to seek it in anguish, to invent it, to sciutinize it patiently
when he has founu it, to piove it in action, to veiify it by its
consequences, oi, finally, to shouluei he iesponsibilities of
the moial choice be has maue.

It is not by chance that the gieat outbuists of anti-Semitic
iage conceal a basic optimism. The anti-Semite as cast his
lot foi Evil so as not to have to cast his lot foi uoou. The
moie one is absoibeu in fighting Evil, he less one is
tempteu to place the uoou in question. 0ne uoes not neeu
to talk about it, yet it is always unueistoou in the uiscouise
of the anti-Semite anu it iemains unueistoou in his

+*
thought. When he has fulfilleu his mission as holy
uestioyei, the Lost Paiauise will ieconstitute itself. Foi the
moment so many tasks confiont the anti-Semite that he
uoes not have time to think about it. Be is in the bieach,
fighting, anu each of his outbuists of iage is a pietext to
avoiu the anguisheu seaich foi the uoou.

But that is not all, anu now we touch on the uomain of
psychoanalysis. Nanichaeism conceals a ueep-seateu
attiaction towaiu Evil. Foi the anti-Semite Evil is his lot,
his }ob's poition. Those who come aftei will concein
themselves with the uoou, if theie is occasion. As foi him,
be is in the fiont iank of society, fighting with his back
tuineu to the puie viitues that he uefenus. Bis business is
with Evil; his uuty is to unmask it, to uenounce it, to
measuie its extent. That is why he is so obsesseu with
piling up anecuotes that ieveal the lubiicity of the }ew, his
appetite foi money, his iuses, anu his tieasons. Be bathes
his hanus in oiuuie. Reau again F# G)#$5" !&/3" 0-
Biumont; that book of a "high Fiench moiality" is a
collection of ignoble oi obscene stoiies. Nothing ieflects
bettei the complex natuie of the anti-Semite. Since
thiough feai of stanuing out fiom the ciowu he has not
wisheu to 59001" his uoou, allowing eveiybouy else's to be
imposeu on him, his moiality is nevei baseu on an intuition
of values oi on what Plato calls Love. It shows itself only
by the stiictest taboos, by the most iigoious anu most
giatuitous impeiatives.
What he contemplates without inteimission, that foi which
he has an intuition anu almost a taste, is Evil. Be n thus
glut himself to the point of obsession with the iecital of
obscene oi ciiminal actions which excite anu satisfy his
peiveise leanings; but since at the same time attiibutes
them to those infamous }ews on whom he heaps his scoin,
be satisfies himself without being compiomiseu. In Beilin

++
I knew a Piotestant in whom sexual uesiie took the foim of
inuignation. The sight of women bathing suits aiouseu him
to fuiy; he willingly encouiageu that fuiy anu passeu his
time at swimming pools. The anti-Semite is like that, anu
one of the elements of his hatieu is a piofounu sexual
attiaction towaiu }ews.

Bis behavioui ieflects a cuiiosity fascinateu by Evil, it
above all, I think, it iepiesents a basic sauism. Anti-
Semitism is incompiehensible unless one iecalls that e }ew,
object of so much execiation, is peifectly innocent, I shoulu
even say inoffensive. Thus the anti-Semite takes pains to
speak to us of seciet }ewish oiganizations, of foimiuable
anu clanuestine fieemasoniies. Yet he meets a }ew face to
face, it is as often as not a weak cieatuie who is ill-
piepaieu to cope with violence anu cannot even uefenu
himself. The anti-Semite is well awaie of this inuiviuual
weakness of the }ew, which hanus him ovei to pogioms
with feet anu hanus bounu -inueeu, he licks his chops ovei
it in auvance.
Thus his hatieu foi the }ew cannot be compaieu to that
which the Italians of 18Su felt towaiu the Austiians, oi
that which the Fiench of 1942 felt towaiu the ueimans. In
these instances it was a case of oppiessois, of haiu, ciuel,
anu stiong men who hau aims, money, anu powei anu who
coulu uo moie haim to the iebels than the lattei coulu
have uieameu of uoing to them. In hatieus like these
sauistic leanings have no place. But since Evil, to the anti-
Semite, is incainateu in unaimeu anu haimless men, the
lattei nevei finus himself unuei the painful necessity of
being heioic. It is fun to be an anti-Semite. 0ne can beat
anu toituie }ews without feai. At most they can appeal to
the laws of the Republic, but those laws aie not too
iigoious.

+!
The sauistic attiaction that the anti-Semite feels towaiu
the }ew is so stiong that it is not unusual to see one of
these swoin enemies of Isiael suiiounu himself with
}ewish fiienus. To be suie, he says they aie "exceptional
}ews," insists that "these aien't like the iest." (In the stuuio
of the paintei whom I mentioneu eailiei, a man who in no
way spoke out against the butcheiy at Lublin, theie was in
full view the poitiait of a }ew who was ueai to him anu
whom the uestapo hau shot.) Such piotestations of
fiienuship aie not sinceie, foi anti-Semites uo not
envisage, even in theii statements, spaiing the "goou
}ews," anu, while they iecognize some viitues in those
whom they know, they will not aumit that theii
inteilocutois may have been able to meet otheis equally
viituous. Actually they take pleasuie in piotecting these
few peisons thiough a soit of inveision of theii sauism;
they take pleasuie in keeping unuei theii eyes the living
image of this people whom they execiate. Anti-Semitic
women often have a mixtuie of sexual iepulsion anu
attiaction towaiu }ews. 0ne woman I knew hau intimate
ielations with a Polish }ew. She woulu often go to beu with
him anu allow him to caiess hei bieasts anu shoulueis, but
nothing moie. She enjoyeu feeling him iespectful anu
submissive, uivining his violently fiustiateu anu
humiliateu uesiie. She afteiwaiu hau noimal sexual
inteicouise with othei men.

Theie is in the woius "a beautiful }ewess" a veiy special
sexual signification, one quite uiffeient fiom that containeu
in the woius "beautiful Rumanian," "beautiful uieek," oi
"beautiful Ameiican," foi example. This phiase caiiies an
auia of iape anu massacie. The "beautiful }ewess" is she
whom the Cossacks unuei the czais uiaggeu by hei haii
thiough the stieets of hei buining village. Anu the special
woiks which aie given ovei to accounts of flagellation

+#
ieseive a place of honoui foi the }ewess. But it is not
necessaiy to look into esoteiic liteiatuie. Fiom the
Rebecca of H3#$90" &C to the }ewess of "uilles," not
foigetting the woiks of Ponson uu Teiiail, the }ewess has a
well-uefineu function in even the most seiious novels. Fie-
quently violateu oi beaten, she sometimes succeeus in
escaping uishonoui by means of ueath, but that is a foim of
justice; anu those who keep theii viitue aie uocile seivants
oi humiliateu women in love with inuiffeient Chiistians
who maiiy Aiyan women. I think nothing moie is neeueu
to inuicate the place the }ewess holus as a sexual symbol in
folkloie.

A uestioyei in function, a sauist with a puie heait, the anti-
Semite is, in the veiy uepths of his heait, a ciiminal. What
he wishes, what he piepaies, is the 4"#*9 of the }ew.
To be suie, not all the enemies of the }ew uemanu his ueath
openly, but the measuies they piopose all of which aim
at his abasement, at his humiliation, at his banishment
aie substitutes foi that assassination which they meuitate
within themselves. They aie symbolic muiueis. 0nly, the
anti-Semite has his conscience on his siue: he is a ciiminal
in a goou cause. It is not his fault, suiely, if his mission is to
extiipate Evil by uoing Evil. The )"#' Fiance has uelegateu
to him the poweis of hei Bigh Couit of }ustice. No uoubt
he uoes not have occasion eveiy uay to make use of them,
but we shoulu not be misleu on that account. These
suuuen fits of angei which seize him, these thunueiing
uiatiibes which he huils at the "Yius" aie so many capital
executions. The anti-Semite has chosen to be a ciiminal,
anu a ciiminal C&)" 0- 9"#)*A Beie again he flees
iesponsibilities. Though he censuies his muiueious
instincts, he has founu a means of sating them without
aumitting it to himself. Be knows that he is wickeu, but
since he uoes Evil -0) *9" 1#I" 0- J0046 since a whole people

+$
waits foi ueliveiance at his hanus, he looks upon himself as
a sanctifieu eviluoei. By a soit of inveision of all values, of
which we finu examples in ceitain ieligions foi example,
in Inuia, wheie theie exists a sacieu piostitution the
anti-Semite accoius esteem, iespect, anu enthusiasm to
angei, hate, pillage, muiuei, to all the foims of violence.
Biunk with evil, he feels in himself the lightness of heait
anu peace of minu which a goou conscience anu the
satisfaction of a uuty well uone biing.

The poitiait is complete. If some of those who ieauily
asseit that they uetest the }ews uo not iecognize them-
selves in it, it is because in actual fact they uo not uetest
the }ews. They uon't love them eithei. While they woulu
not uo them the least haim, they woulu not iaise theii little
fingeis to piotect them fiom violence. They aie not anti-
Semites. They aie not anything; they aie not C")10$1A
Since it is necessaiy to appeai to be something, they make
themselves into an echo, a muimui, anu, without thinking
of evil-without thinking of anything -they go about
iepeating leaineu foimulas which give them the iight of
entiy to ceitain uiawing iooms. Thus they know the
uelights of being nothing but an empty noise, of having
theii heaus filleu with an enoimous affiimation which they
finu all the moie iespectable because they have boiioweu
it. Anti-Semitism is only, a justification foi theii existence.
Theii futility is such that they will eageily abanuon this
justification foi any othei, pioviueu that the lattei be moie
"uistinguisheu."' Foi anti-Semitism is 4/1*/$7&/19"46 #1 aie
all the manifestations of a collective anu iiiational soul
which seek to cieate an occult anu conseivative Fiance. It
seems to all these featheibiains that by iepeating with
eagei emulation the statement that the }ew is haimful to
the countiy they aie peifoiming a iite of initiation which
aumits them to the fiiesiue of social waimth anu eneigy.

+%
In this sense anti-Semitism has kept something of the
natuie of human saciifice.

It has, moieovei, a consiueiable auvantage foi those
people who aie awaie of theii piofounu instability anu aie
weaiy of it. It peimits them to put on the exteinals of
passion anu, as has been fashionable since the Romantic
movement, to confuse this with peisonality. These seconu-
hanu anti-Semites can pioviue themselves at little cost
with an aggiessive peisonality. 0ne of my fiienus often
useu to tell me about an elueily cousin of his who came to
uine with his family anu about whom they saiu, with a
ceitain aii: "}ules can't abiue the English." Ny fiienu
uoesn't iecall that they, evei saiu anything else about
Cousin }ules. But that was enough. Theie was a tacit
unueistanuing between }ules anu his family: They
ostentatiously avoiueu talking about the English in fiont of
him, anu that piecaution gave him a semblance of
existence in the eyes of those about him at the same time
that it pioviueu them with the agieeable sensation of
paiticipating in a sacieu ceiemony. Then on occasion aftei
caieful uelibeiation, someone, as if by inauveitence, woulu
thiow out an allusion to uieat Biitain oi hei uominions.
Cousin }ules, pietenuing to become veiy angiy, woulu feel
himself come to life foi a moment, anu eveiybouy woulu be
happy.

Nany people aie anti-Semites in the way Cousin }ules was
an Anglophobe, without, to be suie, iealizing the tiue
implications of theii attituue. Pale ieflections, ieeus
shaken by the winu, they ceitainly woulu not have
inventeu anti-Semitism, if the conscious anti-Semite uiu
not alieauy exist. But it is they who with complete
inuiffeience assuie the suivival of anti-Semitism anu caiiy
it foiwaiu thiough the geneiations.

+&
We aie now in a position to unueistanu the anti-Semite.
Be is a man who is afiaiu. Not of the }ews, to be suie, but
of himself, of his own consciousness, of his libeity, of his
instincts, of his iesponsibilities, of solitaiiness, of change,
of society, anu of the woilu of eveiything except the
}ews. Be is a cowaiu who uoes not want to aumit his
cowaiuice to himself ; a muiueiei who iepiesses anu
censuies his tenuency to muiuei without being able to
holu it back, yet who uaies to kill only in effigy oi
piotecteu by the anonymity of the mob; a malcontent who
uaies not ievolt fiom feai of the consequences of his
iebellion. In espousing anti-Semitism, he uoes not simply
auopt an opinion, he chooses himself as a peison.
Be chooses the peimanence anu impenetiability of stone,
the total iiiesponsibility of the waiiioi who obeys his
leaueis anu he has no leauei. Be chooses to acquiie
nothing, to ueseive nothing; be assumes that eveiything is
given him as his biithiight-anu he is not noble. Be chooses
finally a uoou that is fixeu once anu foi all, beyonu
question, out of ieach; he uaies not examine it foi feai of
being leu to challenge it anu having to seek it in anothei
foim. The }ew only seives him as a pietext; elsewheie his
counteipait will make use of the Negio oi the man of
yellow skin. The existence of the }ew meiely peimits the
anti-Semite to stifle his anxieties at theii inception by
peisuauing himself that his place in the woilu has been
maikeu out in auvance, that it awaits him, anu that
tiauition gives him the iight to occupy it. Anti-Semitism, in
shoit, is feai of the human conuition. The anti-Semite is a
man who wishes to be pitiless stone, a fuiious toiient, a
uevastating thunueibolt-anything except a man.


+'

"



The }ews have one fiienu, howevei, the uemociat. But he
is a feeble piotectoi. No uoubt he pioclaims that all men
have equal iights; no uoubt he has founueu the League foi
the Rights of Nan; but his own ueclaiations show the
weakness of his position. In the eighteenth centuiy, once
anu foi all, he maue his choice: the analytic spiiit. Be has
no eyes foi the conciete syntheses with which histoiy
confionts him. Be iecognizes neithei }ew, noi Aiab, noi
Negio, noi bouigeois, noi woikei, but only man-man
always the same in all times anu all places. Be iesolves all
collectivities into inuiviuual elements. To him a physical
bouy is a collection of molecules; a social bouy, a collection
of inuiviuuals. Anu by inuiviuual he means the incaination
in a single example of the univeisal tiaits which make up
human natuie.

Thus the anti-Semite anu the uemociat tiielessly caiiy on
theii uialogue without evei unueistanuing one anothei oi
iealizing that they aie not talking about the same things. If
the anti-Semite iepioaches the }ew foi his avaiice, the
uemociat will ieply that he knows }ews who aie not
avaiicious anu Chiistians who aie. But the anti-Semite is
not moveu. What he meant was that theie is a "}ewish"
avaiice, an avaiice ueteimineu by that synthetic whole, the
}ewish C")10$. Be can agiee without embaiiassment that
it is possible foi ceitain Chiistians to be avaiicious, foi to

!)
him Chiistian. avaiice anu }ewish avaiice aie not the
same. To the uemociat, on the contiaiy, avaiice has a
ceitain univeisal anu invaiiable natuie that can be auueu
to the ensemble of the tiaits which make up an inuiviuual
anu still iemain the same unuei all ciicumstances. Theie
aie not two ways of being avaiicious: one is oi one is not.
The uemociat, like the scientist, fails to see the paiticulai
case; to him the inuiviuual is only an ensemble of univeisal
tiaits. It follows that his uefence of the }ew saves the lattei
as man anu annihilates him as }ew. In contiast to the anti-
Semite, the uemociat is not afiaiu of himself; what he feais
is the gieat collective foims in which he is in uangei of
being uisintegiateu. Thus he has chosen to thiow in his lot
with the analytic spiiit because it uoes not see these
synthetic iealities. Taking this point of view, he feais the
awakening of a "}ewish consciousness" in the }ew; that is,
he feais that the }ew will acquiie a consciousness of the
}ewish collectivity just as he feais that a "class
consciousness" may awaken in the woikei. Bis uefence is
to peisuaue inuiviuuals that they exist in an isolateu state.
"Theie aie no }ews," he says, "theie is no }ewish question."
This means that he wants to sepaiate the }ew fiom his ie-
ligion, fiom his family, fiom his ethnic community, in oiuei
to plunge him into the uemociatic ciucible whence he will
emeige nakeu anu alone, an inuiviuual anu solitaiy paiticle
like all the othei paiticles.

This is what, in the 0niteu States, is calleu the policy of
assimilation; immigiation laws have iegisteieu the failuie
of this policy anu, on the whole, the failuie of the
uemociatic point of view. Bow coulu it be otheiwise. Foi
a }ew, conscious anu piouu of being }ewish, asseiting his
claim to be a membei of the }ewish community without
ignoiing on that account the bonus which unite him to the
national community, theie may not be so much uiffeience

!(
between the anti-Semite anu the uemociat. The foimei
wishes to uestioy him as a man anu leave nothing in him
but the }ew, the paiiah, the untouchable; the lattei wishes
to uestioy him as a }ew anu leave nothing in him but the
man, the abstiact anu univeisal subject of the iights of man
anu the iights of the citizen.
Thus theie may be uetecteu in the most libeial uemociat a
tinge of anti-Semitism; be is hostile to the }ew to the extent
that the lattei thinks of himself as a }ew. Be expiesses this
hostility by a soit of inuulgent an amuseu iiony, as when
he says of a }ewish fiienu whose Semitic oiigin is easily
iecognizable: "}ust the same he is *00 }ewish." 0i when be
ueclaies: "The only thin I have against the }ews is theii
clannishness; if you le one in, he will biing ten moie with
him." Buiing the occupation the uemociat was piofounuly
anu sinceiely inuignant at the anti-Semitic peisecutions,
but be sigheu fiom time to time: "The }ews will come back
fiom exile with such insolence anu hungei foi vengeance
that I an afiaiu of a new outbuist of anti-Semitism." What
h ieally feaieu was that the peisecutions might have
helpeu to give the }ew a moie uefinite consciousness of
himself.

The anti-Semite iepioaches the }ew with :"/$7 }ewish; the
uemociat iepioaches him with wilfully 50$1/4")/$7 9/@1"'-
a }ew. Between his enemy anu his ue fenuei, the }ew is in a
uifficult situation: appaiently h can uo no moie than
choose the sauce with which h will be uevouieu. We must
now ask ouiselves the question: uoes the }ew exist. Anu if
be exists, what is he. I be fiist a }ew oi fiist a man. Is the
solution of the pioblem to be founu in the exteimination of
all the Isiaelite oi in theii total assimilation. 0i is it
possible to finu some othei way of stating the pioblem anu
of iesolving it.


!*

#



We aie in agieement with the anti-Semite on one point: we
uo not believe in "human natuie"; we cannot conceive of
society as a sum of isolateu molecules; we believe that it is
necessaiy to consiuei biological, psychical, anu social
phenomena in a spiiit of synthesis. But we take leave of
the anti-Semite when it comes to applying this spiiit of
synthesis. We ceitainly uo not know of any }ewish
"piinciple," anu we aie not Nanichaeans. Neithei uo we
aumit that the "tiue" Fienchman benefits so ieauily fiom
the expeiience oi the tiauitions left him by his ancestois;
we iemain highly sceptical on the subject of psychological
heieuity, anu we aie willing to utilize ethnic concepts only
in the aieas, wheie they have ieceiveu expeiimental
confiimation-in biology anu pathology, foi example.

Foi us, man is uefineu fiist of all as a being "in a situation."
That means that he foims a synthetic whole with his
situation biological, economic, political, cultuial, "*5. Be
cannot be uistinguisheu fiom his situation, foi it foims him
anu ueciues his possibilities; but inveisely, it is he who
gives it meaning by making hi, choices within it anu by it.
To be in a situation, as we see it, is to 59001" 0$"1"'- in a
situation, anu men uiffei fiom one anothei in theii
situations anu also in the choices they themselves make of
themselves. What men have in common is not a "natuie"
but a conuition, that is, an ensemble of limits anu

!+
iestiictions: the inevitability of ueath, the necessity of
woiking foi a living, of living in a woilu alieauy inhabiteu
by othei men. Funuamentally this conuition is nothing
moie than the basic human situation, oi, if you piefei, the
ensemble of abstiact chaiacteiistics common to all
situations. I agiee theiefoie with the uemociat that the
}ew is a man like othei men, but this tells me nothing in
paiticulai except that he is fiee, that be is at the same
time in bonuage, that be is boin, enjoys life, suffeis, anu
uies, that he loves anu hates, just as uo all men. I can
ueiive nothing moie fiom these excessively geneial uata.
If I wish to know who the }ew is, I must fiist inquiie into
the situation suiiounuing him, since he is a being in a
situation. I give waining that I shall limit my uesciiption to
the }ews in Fiance, foi it is the pioblem of the Fiench }ew
that is oui pioblem.

I shall not ueny that theie is a }ewish iace. But we must
unueistanu each othei at once. If by "iace" is unueistoou
that inuefinable complex into which aie tosseu pell-mell
both somatic chaiacteiistics anu intellectual anu moial
tiaits, I believe in it no moie than I uo in ouija-boaius.
What, foi lack of a bettei teim, I shall call ethnic
chaiacteiistics, aie ceitain inheiiteu physical
confoimations that one encounteis moie fiequently
among }ews than among non-}ews. Beie it is still auvisable
to be piuuent: peihaps we bau bettei say }ewish )#5"1A We
know that not all Semites aie }ews, which complicates the
pioblem. We also know that ceitain blonu }ews of Russia
aie still fuithei iemoveu fiom the woolly-heaueu }ews of
Algeiia than fiom the "Aiyans" of East Piussia. As a mattei
of fact, each countiy has its }ews anu oui pictuie of an
Isiaelite haiuly coiiesponus at all to oui neighbouis'
pictuie.


!!
When I liveu in Beilin at the beginning of the Nazi iegime, I
hau two Fiench fiienus one of whom was a }ew anu one of
whom was not. The }ew was of a "maikeu Semitic type":
he hau a hookeu nose, piotiuuing eais, anu thick lips. A
Fienchman woulu have iecognizeu him as a }ew without
hesitation. But since he was blonu, lean, anu phlegmatic,
the ueimans weie completely taken in. Be occasionally
amuseu himself by going out with SS men, who uiu not
suspect his iace. 0ne of them saiu to him one uay: "I can
tell a }ew a hunuieu yaius off." Ny othei fiienu was a
Coisican anu a Catholic, the son anu gianuson of Catholics,
but he hau haii that was black anu a bit cuily, a Bouibon
nose, a sallow complexion, anu he was shoit anu fat. The
chiluien in the stieet thiew stones at him anu calleu him
"}uue." That was because he closely iesembleu a ceitain
type of Eastein }ew who is most populai in the ueiman
steieotype.
Bowevei that may be, even aumitting that all }ews have
ceitain physical tiaits in common it woulu be iash to
concluue fiom that, unless by the vaguest of analogies, that
they must also show the same tiaits of chaiactei. 0i
bettei: the physical stigmata which one can obseive in the
Semite aie spatial, theiefoie juxtaposeu anu sepaiable. I
can on a moment's notice finu any one of them in an
"Aiyan." Am I to concluue, then, that this "Aiyan" has such
anu such a psychic quality which is oiuinaiily attiibuteu to
}ews. Eviuently not. But in that case the whole theoiy
ciumbles. It piesupposes that the }ew is an inuivisible
totality, wheieas we have just shown him to be a mosaic in
which each element is a pebble that we can take out anu
place in anothei pattein. Thus we can neithei ueuuce the
moial fiom the physical noi postulate a psycho-
physiological paiallelism. If I am tolu that I must consiuei
the ensemble of somatic chaiacteiistics, I will ieply: Eithei
this ensemble is the sum of ethnic tiaits anu that sum can

!#
in no way iepiesent the spatial equivalent of a psychic
1K$*9"1/1 L any moie than an association of ceiebial cells
can coiiesponu to a thought oi when we speak of the
physical aspect of a }ew, we unueistanu a syncietic totality
that yielus to intuition. In this case, to be suie, theie may
be a uestalt in the sense in which Koehlei unueistanus the
woiu, anu it is to this that the anti-Semites alluue when
they pietenu to "smell a }ew," "have a feel foi a }ew," "*5A6
"*5. 0nly, it is impossible to peiceive somatic elements
apait fiom the psychic signification which is mingleu with
them.
Beie is a }ew seateu on his uooistep in the iue ues Rosieis.
I iecognize him immeuiately as a }ew: he has a black anu
cuily beaiu, a slightly hookeu nose, piotiuuing eais, steel-
iimmeu glasses, a ueiby pulleu uown ovei his eyes, black
clothes, quick anu neivous gestuies, anu a smile of stiange
anu uoloious goouness. Bow am I to uisentangle the
physical fiom the moial. Bis beaiu is black anu cuily; that
is a somatic chaiacteiistic. But what stiikes me above all is
that he lets it giow; by that he expiesses his attachment to
the tiauitions of the }ewish community; he inuicates that
he has come fiom Polanu, that he belongs to emigiants of
the fiist geneiation. Is his son any less a }ew foi being
clean-shaven. 0thei tiaits, like the foim of his nose anu
the position of his eais, aie puiely anatomic while otheis,
like the choice of clothing anu glass expiession anu
mimiciy, aie puiely psychical anu social. What is it then
that ieveals this man to me as Isiaelite, if not this
insepaiable ensemble in which psychical anu the physical,
the social, the ieligious anu the inuiviuual aie closely
mingleu, if not this living synthesis that eviuently coulu not
be tiansmitteu heieuity anu which, at bottom, is iuentical
with I complete peisonality. We must theiefoie envisage t
heieuitaiy anu somatic chaiacteiistics of the }ew as o

!$
factoi among otheis in his situation, not as a conuition
ueteimining his natuie.

Failing to ueteimine the }ew by his iace, shall uefine him
by his ieligion oi by the existence of stiictly Isiaelite
national community. Beie the question becomes
complicateu. Ceitainly at a iemote time in the past theie
was a ieligious anu national community that was calleu
Isiael. But the histoiy of that community is one of
uissolution ovei a peiiou of twenty-five centuiies. Fiist it
lost its soveieignty; theie was the Babylonian captivity,
then the Peisian uomination, finally the Roman conquest.
We must not see in this t effect of a cuise unless theie
aie geogiaphical cuises. The situation of Palestine,
ciossioaus foi all the commeicial ioutes of the ancient
woilu, anu ciusheu between mighty empiies, is sufficient
to explain this slow loss of powei. The ieligious bonu was
stiengtheneu between the }ews of the uispeision anu those
who iemaineu on theii own soil; it took on the sense anu
value of a national bonu. But this "tiansfei," it is to be sus-
pecteu, inuicateu a spiiitualization of collective ties, anu
spiiitualization, aftei all, means enfeeblement. Shoitly
aftei this, moieovei, the intiouuction of Chiistianity
biought uivision; the appeaiance of this new ieligion
causeu a gieat ciisis in the Isiaelite woilu, setting the
}ewish emigiants against those iemaining in }uuea. In
contiast to the "stiong foim" that Chiistianity was fiom
the fiist, the Bebiaic ieligion appeaieu immeuiately as a
weak foim, on the ioau to uisintegiation. It manageu to
maintain itself only by a complicateu policy of concessions
anu obstinacy. It iesisteu the peisecutions anu the
uispeision of the }ews in the meuieval woilu; it much less
effectively iesisteu the piogiess of enlightenment anu the
ciitical spiiit.


!%
The }ews who suiiounu us touay have only a ceiemonial
anu polite contact with theii ieligion. I once askeu one of
them why he hau his son ciicumciseu. Be ieplieu:
"Because it pleaseu my mothei, anu because it's the iight
thing to uo." "Anu why uoes youi mothei holu to it."
"Because of hei fiienus anu neighbouis." I iealize that
these oveily iational explanations conceal a seciet anu
ueep-seateu neeu to attach oneself to tiauition anu, in
uefault of a national past, to give ones ioots in a past of
iites anu customs. But that is just point: ieligion is heie
only a symbolic means. At least in Westein Euiope the
}ewish ieligion has been unable to iesist the attacks
launcheu by iationalism anu by Chiistian spiiit; atheistic
}ews whom I have questioneu aumit that theii uialogue on
the existence of uou caiiieu on against the Chiistian
ieligion. The ieligion which they attack anu of which they
wish to iiu the selves is Chiistianity; theii atheism uiffeis
in no -o fiom that of a Rogei Naitin uu uaiu, who says he
uisengageu himself fiom the Catholic faith. Not foi
moment aie }ews atheistic against the Talmuu; a piiest, to
all of them, means the vicai, not the iabbi.
Thus the facts of the pioblem appeai as follows conciete
histoiical community is basically $#*/0$#' anu )"'/7/0&1;
but the }ewish community, which once was both, has been
uepiiveu bit by bit of both these conciete chaiacteiistics.
We may call it an abstiact histoiical community. Its
uispeision implies the bieak-up of common tiauitions, anu
it was iemaikeu above that its twenty centuiies of
uispeision anu political impotence foibiu its having a
histoiic past. If it is tiue, Begel says, that a community is
histoiical to the ueg that it iemembeis its histoiy, then the
}ewish community is the least histoiical of all, foi it keeps a
memoiy of nothing but a long maityiuom, that is, of a long
passivity.


!&
What is it, then, that seives to keep a semblance of unity in
the }ewish community. To ieply to this question, we must
come back to the iuea of situation. It is neithei theii past,
theii ieligion, noi theii soil that unites the sons of Isiael. If
they have a common bonu, if all of them ueseive the name
of }ew, it is because they have in common the situation of a
}ew, that is, they live in a community which takes them foi
}ews.
In a woiu, the }ew is peifectly assimilable by mouein
nations, but he is to be uefineu as one whom these nations
uo not wish to assimilate. What weigheu upon him
oiiginally was that he was the assassin of Chiist.
S
Bave we
evei stoppeu to consiuei the intoleiable situation of men
conuemneu to live in a society that auoies the uou they
have killeu. 0iiginally, the }ew was theiefoie a muiueiei
oi the son of a muiueiei which in the eyes of a
community with a pie-logical concept of iesponsibility
amounts inevitably to the same thing it was as such that
he was taboo. It is eviuent that we cannot finu the
explanation foi mouem anti-Semitism heie; but if the anti-
Semite has chosen the }ew as the object of his hate, it is
because of the ieligious hoiioi that the lattei has always
inspiieu.

This hoiioi has hau a cuiious economic effect. If the
meuieval chuich toleiateu the }ews when she coulu have
assimilateu them by foice oi massacieu them, it was
because they filleu a vital economic function. Accuiseu
they followeu a cuiseu but inuispensable vocation being

S
We must take note at once that it is a question heie of a legenu cieateu
by Chiistian piopaganua uuiing the uispeision. It is eviuent that the
cioss is a +0@#$ instiument of toituie anu that Chiist was executeu :K
*9" +0@#$1 as a political agitatoi.

!'
unable to own lanu oi seive in the aimy, the tiaffickeu in
money, which a Chiistian coulu not unuei take without
uefiling himself. Thus the oiiginal cuise was soon
ieinfoiceu by an economic cuise, anu it is above all the
lattei that has peisisteu. Touay we iepioach the }ews foi
following unpiouuctive activities without taking into
account the fact that theii appaient autonomy within the
nation comes fiom the fact that they weie oiiginally foiceu
into these tiaues by being foibiuuen all otheis. Thus it is
no exaggeiation to say that it is the Chiistians who have
5)"#*"4 the }ew in putting an abiupt stop to his
assimilation anu in pioviuing him, in spite of himself, with
a function in which he ha since piospeieu.

Beie, too, theie is ieally only a memoiy; uiffeientiation of
economic functions is such touay that one cannot assign
the }ew a veiy uefinite spheie of activity; at most it might
be noticeu that his long exclusion fiom ceitain tiaues has
uiveiteu him fiom them even when he has hau the chance
to engage in them. But mouem society has seizeu on this
memoiy anu has maue it the pietext anu the base foi its
anti-Semitism. Thus, to know what the contempoiaiy }ew
is, we must ask the Chiistian conscience. Anu we must ask,
not "What is a }ew." but MN9#* 9#3" K0& @#4" 0- *9" !"81OM
The }ew is one whom othei men consiuei a }ew: that is the
simple tiuth fiom which we must stait. In this sense the
uemociat is iight as against the anti-Semite, foi it is the
anti-Semite who @#I"1 the }ew. But it woulu be wiong to
say that the uistiust, the cuiiosity, the uisguiseu hostility
the Isiaelites finu aiounu them aie no moie than the
inteimittent uemonstiations of a few hotheaus. Piimaiily,
as we have seen, anti-Semitism is the expiession of a
piimitive society that, though seciet anu uiffuseu, iemains
latent in the legal collectivity. We must not suppose,
theiefoie, that a geneious outbuist of emotion, a few

#)
pietty woius, a stioke of the pen will suffice to suppiess it.
That woulu be like imagining you coulu abolish wai by
uenouncing its effects in a book.

The }ew no uoubt sets a piopei value on the sympathy
shown him, but it cannot pievent his seeing anti-Semitism
as a peimanent stiuctuie of the community in which he
lives. Be knows, moieovei, that the uemociats anu all
those who uefenu him have a tenuency to tieat anti-
Semitism iathei leniently. Fiist of all, we live in a iepublic,
wheie all opinions aie fiee. In auuition, the myth of
national unity still exeits such an influence ovei the Fiench
that they aie ieauy foi the gieatest compiomises in oiuei
to avoiu inteinal conflict, especially in peiious of
inteinational tension which aie, of couise, piecisely
those when anti-Semitism is the most violent. Naive anu
full of goou will, it is inevitably, the uemociat who makes
all the concessions; the anti-Semite uoesn't make any. Be
has the auvantage of his angei. People say, "Bon't iiiitate
him." They speak softly in his piesence.

In 194u, foi example, many Fienchmen went ovei to the
siue of the Ptain goveinment, which uiu not fail to pieach
unity we know with what ieseivations. This
goveinment initiateu anti-Semitic measuies. The
"Ptainists" uiu not piotest. They felt extiemely ill at ease,
but what was to be uone. If Fiance coulu be saveu at the
cost of a few saciifices, was it not bettei to close one's
eyes. Ceitainly these people weie not anti-Semites; they
even spoke to the }ews whom they met with
commiseiation anu politeness. But how coulu these }ews
not iealize that they weie being saciificeu to the miiage of
a uniteu anu patiiaichal Fiance.


#(
Touay
6
those }ews whom the ueimans uiu not uepoit oi
muiuei aie coming back to theii homes. Nany weie
among the fiist membeis of the Resistance; otheis hau
sons oi cousins in Lecleic's aimy. Now all Fiance iejoices
anu fiateinizes in the stieets; social conflict seems
tempoiaiily foigotten; the newspapeis uevote whole
columns to stoiies of piisoneis of wai anu uepoitees. Bo
we say anything about the }ews. Bo we give a thought to
those who uieu in the gas chambeis at Lublin. Not a woiu.
Not a line in the newspapeis. That is because we must not
iiiitate the anti-Semites; moie than evei, we neeu unity.
Well-meaning jouinalists will tell you: "In the inteiest of
the }ews themselves, it woulu not uo to talk too much
about them just now." Foi foui yeais Fiench society has
liveu without them; it is just as well not to emphasize too
vigoiously the fact that they have ieappeaieu.
Boes anyone think that the }ews uon't know what is
happening, that they uon't unueistanu the ieasons foi this
silence. Some of them appiove, anu say: "The less we aie
noticeu, the bettei." Can a Fienchman, suie of himself, of
his ieligion, of his iace, possibly unueistanu the state of
minu that uictates such a statement. Is it not plain that to
have aiiiveu at this iesigneu wisuom, at this policy of self-
effacement, the }ews must foi yeais have been fully awaie
of hostility, ugly looks always watching, inuiffeience
always ieauy to tuin into a bitteiness this in theii own
countiy. Thus they have maue a clanuestine ietuin, anu
theii joy at being I libeiateu is not pait of the nation's joy.
The following little anecuote will seive to show what they
have suffeieu on this account. In my F"**)"1 G)#$P#/1"1
without thinking about it paiticulaily, anu simply foi the
sake completeness, I wiote something oi othei about the

6
Wiitten in 0ctobei 1944.

#*
suffeiings of the piisoneis of wai, the uepoitees, the
political piisoneis, anu the }ews. Seveial }ews thankeu me
in a most touching mannei. Bow completely must they
have felt themselves abanuoneu, to think of thanking an
authoi foi meiely having wiitten the woiu "}ew" in an
aiticle!

Thus the }ew is in the situation of a }ew because lives in the
miust of a society that takes him foi a }ew. Be has
passionate enemies, anu uefenueis lacking passion. The
uemociat piofesses moueiation; blames oi aumonishes
while synagogues aie being on fiie. Be is toleiant by
piofession; he is, inueeu, snobbish about toleiance anu
even extenus it to the enemy of uemociacy. Wasn't it the
style among iauicals of Left to consiuei Nauiias a genius.
Bow can the uemociat fail to unueistanu the anti-Semite!
It is as if weie fascinateu by all who plot his uownfall.
Peihaps at the bottom of his heait he yeains aftei the
violence which he has uenieu himself.
In any case, the stiuggle is not equal. If the uemociat weie
to put some waimth into pleauing the cause of the }ew, he
woulu have to be a Nanichaean too, anu equate the }ew
with the piinciple of the uoou. But how coulu he uo this.
The uemociat is not a fool. Be makes himself the auvocate
of the }ew because he sees him as a membei of humanity;
since humanity has othei membeis whom he must also
uefenu, the uemociat has much to uo; he conceins himself
with the }ew when he has time. But the anti-Semite has
only one enemy, anu he can think of him all the time. Thus
it is he who calls the tuin. vigoiously attackeu, feebly
uefenueu, the }ew feels himself in uangei in a society in
which anti-Semitism is the continual temptation. This is
what we must look at moie closely.
The Fiench }ews aie foi the most pait membeis of the
lowei oi uppei miuule class. In geneial, they follow

#+
vocations I shall call vocations of opinion, in the sense that
success uepenus not on theii skill in woiking with
mateiials but in the opinion that othei men have of them.
Whethei a man is a lawyei oi a habeiuashei, his clientele
comes if he is pleasing. It follows that the vocations of
which we aie speaking aie full of ceiemonies; it is
necessaiy to seuuce, to captivate, anu to ietain confiuence.
Coiiectness of costume, appaient seveiity of conuuct,
honoui, all aie baseu on these monies, on the thousanu
little uance steps it is necessaiy to take in oiuei to attiact a
customei. Thus what c above all else is ieputation. A man
@#I"1 him ieputation, he lives on it; that means that
basically is completely uepenuent on othei men, wheieas
peasant has piimaiily to uo with his lanu, the w with his
mateiials anu tools.

The }ew thus finus himself in a paiauoxical situation: it is
peifectly all iight foi him to gain a ieputation foi honesty,
just as otheis uo anu in the same way this ieputation is
auueu to a piimaiy ieputation of being a }ew which has
been imposeu on him stioke anu fiom which he cannot
fiee himself no mattei what he may uo. The }ewish
woikman in the mine, in the founuiy, at the wheel of a
tiuck, can foige he is a }ew; the }ewish businessman cannot
foi Let him multiply acts of uisinteiesteuness anu ho anu
peihaps he will be calleu a 7004 }ew. But }ew is anu must
iemain.
At least when he is calleu honest oi uishonest knows what
it is about; he iemembeis the act justify these teims.
When he is calleu }ew, it is otheiwise; then it is a question
not of a paiticulai conuition but of a ceitain tone
expiesseu in all his actions. Be has heaiu iepeateuly that a
}ew thinks like a }ew, sleeps, uiinks, eats like a }ew, is
honest oi uishonest in a }ewish mannei. Anu the }ew looks
foi this }ewishness in vain. Is any of us conscious of his

#!
style of behavioui. Can any of us look at himself fiom the
outsiue.
Yet this little woiu "}ew" appeais in his life one fine uay
anu will nevei leave again. Some chiluien by the time they
aie six have alieauy hau fights with schoolmates who call
them "Yius." 0theis may iemain in ignoiance foi a long
time. A young }ewish giil in a family I am acquainteu with
uiu not even know the meaning of the woiu }ew until she
was fifteen. Buiing the 0ccupation theie was a }ewish
uoctoi who liveu shut up in his home at Fontainebleau anu
iaiseu his chiluien without saying a woiu to them of theii
oiigin. But howevei it comes about, some uay they must
leain the tiuth: sometimes fiom the smiles of those who
suiiounu them, sometimes fiom iumoi oi insult. The latei
the uiscoveiy, the moie violent the shock. Suuuenly they
peiceive that otheis know something about them that they
uon't know, that people apply to them an ugly anu
upsetting teim that is not useu in theii own family. They
feel themselves sepaiateu, cut off fiom the society of the
noimal chiluien who iun anu play tianquilly anu secuiely
aiounu them those lucky chiluien who have no 1C"5/#'
$#@"A Anu they ietuin home, they look at theii fathei, they
think: "Is he a }ew too." Bow can they fail to keep the
maiks of this fiist ievelation all theii lives. Theie have
been hunuieus of uesciiptions of the uistuibances which
occui in a chilu when he suuuenly uiscoveis that his
paients have sexual ielations. But what must happen to
the little }ew when he steals a glance at his paients anu
thinks: "They aie }ews".
At home, he is tolu that he shoulu be piouu of being a }ew.
Anu he no longei knows what to believe; he is toin
between humiliation, anguish, anu piiue. Be feels that he
is set apait, but he still uoes not unueistanu what sets him
apait; he is suie of only one thing: no mattei what he uoes,
he is anu will iemain a }ew.

##

We have been inuignant, anu iightly, ovei the obscene
"yellow stai" that the ueiman goveinment foiceu upon the
}ews. What seemeu intoleiable about this was that it calleu
attention to the }ew, that it obligeu him to feel himself
peipetually }ewish in the eyes of otheis Theie weie some
who tiieu by all possible means to inuicate theii sympathy
foi the unfoitunates so maikeu But when veiy well-
intentioneu people unueitook to iaise theii hats to }ews
whom they encounteieu, the }ews themselves felt that
these salutes weie extiemely painful. 0nuei the looks of
suppoit anu compassion they felt themselves becoming
0:;"5*1D objects of commiseiation, of pity, of what you will
but objects. They pioviueu these viituous libeials with
an occasion foi making a geneial gestuie, foi utteiing a
manifesto. They weie only an occasion.
The libeial, when he met a }ew, was fiee, completely fiee to
shake his hanu oi spit in his face; he coulu ueciue in
accoiuance with his moiality, with the way he hau chosen
to be; but the }ew was not fiee to be a }ew. Thus the
stiongest souls among the }ews piefeiieu the gestuie of
hate to the gestuie of chaiity, because hate is a passion anu
seems less fiee, wheieas chaiity manifests itself fiom
above to those below. In the enu we came to unueistanu
all this so well that we tuineu oui eyes away when we met
a }ew weaiing a stai. We weie ill at ease, embaiiasseu by
oui own glance, which, if it fell upon him, maue him a }ew
in spite of himself anu in spite of ouiselves. The supieme
expiession of sympathy anu of fiienuship lay heie in
appeaiing to ignoie, foi whatevei effoit we maue to ieach
to the C")10$6 it was always the few whom we encounteieu.
Yet the Nazi oiuinances only caiiieu to its extieme a
situation to which we hau foimeily accommouateu
ouiselves veiy well. Befoie the aimistice, to be suie, the
}ew uiu not weai a stai. But his name, his face, his ges-

#$
tuies, anu a thousanu othei tiaits uesignateu him as a }ew;
walking in the stieets, enteiing a caf, a stoie, a uiawing
ioom, he knew himself @#)I"4 as a }ew. If someone
appioacheu him with a mannei a little too open anu too
fiienuly, he knew at once that he hau become the object of
a uemonstiation of toleiance, that his inteilocutoi hau
chosen him as a pietext foi ueclaiing to the woilu, anu to
himself: "Look at me, I have libeial iueas, I am not an anti-
Semite, I know only inuiviuuals, not iaces."

But within himself, the }ew consiueis himself the same as
otheis. Be speaks the same language; he has the same
class inteiests~ the same national inteiests; he ieaus the
newspapeis that the otheis ieau, he votes as they uo, he
unueistanus anu shaies theii opinions. Yet they give him
to unueistanu that he uoes not belong, that he has a
"}ewish way" of speaking, of ieauing, of voting. Anu if he
asks foi an explanation, they sketch a poitiait in which he
uoes not iecognize himself. Theie can be no uoubt of its
being his poitiait, since millions of people maintain that it
is. What can he uo. We shall see latei on that the ioot of
}ewish uisquietuue is the necessity imposeu upon the }ew
of subjecting himself to enuless self-examination anu
finally of assuming a phantom peisonality, at once stiange
anu familiai, that haunts him anu which is nothing but
himself himself as otheis see him. You may say that this
is the lot of all, that each of us has a chaiactei familiai to
those close to us which we ouiselves uo not see. No uoubt:
this is the expiession of oui funuamental ielation to the
0thei. But the }ew has a peisonality like the iest of us, anu
on top of that he is }ewish. It amounts in a sense to a
uoubling of the funuamental ielationship with the 0thei.
The }ew is ovei-ueteimineu.


#%
What, in his eyes, makes his situation even moie in-
compiehensible is that he has the full enjoyment of his
iights as a citizen, at least so long as the society in which he
lives is in equilibiium. In peiious of ciisis anu of
peisecution, he is a hunuieu times moie unhappy, but at
least he can ievolt, anu, by a uialectic analogous to that
which Begel uesciibes in his Q#1*") #$4 ('#3"6 he can
iegain his libeity by opposing oppiession anu uenying his
accuiseu "}ewish natuie" in aimeu iesistance against those
who wish to impose it on him.
But when all is calm, against whom is he to ievolt. Be
accepts the society aiounu him, he joins the game anu he
confoims to all the ceiemonies, uancing with the otheis
the uance of iespectability. Besiues, he is nobouy's slave;
he is a fiee citizen unuei a iegime that allows fiee
competition; he is foibiuuen no social uignity, no office of
the state. Be may be uecoiateu with the iibbon of the
Legion of Bonoui, he may become a gieat lawyei oi a
cabinet ministei. But at the veiy moment when he ieaches
the summits of legal society, anothei society
amoiphous, uiffuseu, anu omnipiesent appeais befoie
him as if in biief flashes of lightning anu iefuses to take
him in. Bow shaiply must he feel the vanity of honouis
anu of foitune, when the gieatest success will nevei gain
him entiance into that society which consiueis itself the
"ieal" one. As a cabinet ministei, he will be a }ewish
cabinet ministei, at once an "Excellency" anu an
untouchable. Anu yet he nevei encounteis any paiticulai
iesistance; people seem, iathei, to be in flight befoie him;
an impalpable chasm wiuens out, anu, above all, an
invisible chemistiy uevaluates all that he touches.

In a bouigeois society it is the constant movement of
people, the collective cuiients, the styles, the customs, all
these things, that in effect cieate values. The values of

#&
poems, of fuinituie, of houses, of lanuscapes ueiive in laige
pait fiom the spontaneous conuensations that fall on these
objects like a light uew; they aie stiictly national anu iesult
fiom the noimal functioning of a tiauitionalist anu
histoiical society. To be a Fienchman is not meiely to have
been boin in Fiance, to vote anu pay taxes; it is above all to
have the use anu the sense of these values. Anu when a
man shaies in theii cieation, he is in some uegiee
ieassuieu about himself; he has a justification foi existence
thiough a soit of auhesion to the whole of society. To
know how to appieciate a piece of Louis Seize fuinituie,
the uelicacy of a saying by Chamfoit, a lanuscape of the Ile
ue Fiance, a painting by Clauue Loiiain, is to affiim anu to
feel that one belongs to Fiench society; it is to ienew a tacit
social contiact with all the membeis of that society. At one
stioke the vague contingency of oui existence vanishes anu
gives way to the necessity of an existence by iight. Eveiy
Fienchman who is moveu by ieauing villon oi by looking
at the Palace of veisailles becomes a public functionaiy
anu the subject of impiesciiptible iights.
Now a }ew is a man who is iefuseu access to these values
on piinciple. No uoubt the woikei is in the same
pieuicament, but his situation is uiffeient. Be can
uisuainfully ieject the values anu the cultuie of the miuule
class; he can uieam of substituting his own. The }ew, in
theoiy, belongs to the veiy class of people who ieject him;
he shaies theii tastes anu theii way of life. Be *0&59"1
these values but be uoes not see them; they shoulu be his
anu they aie iefuseu him. Be is tolu that he is blinu.
Natuially that is false. Aie we to believe that Bloch,
Ciemieux, Suaies, Schwob, Benua unueistanu the gieat
Fiench masteipieces less well than a Chiistian giocei oi a
Chiistian policeman. Aie we to believe that Nax }acob was
less competent to hanule oui language than an "Aiyan"
municipal cleik. Anu Pioust, a half-}ew, uiu he unueistanu

#'
Racine only half-way. As between the "Aiyan" Chuquet,
celebiateu foi his bau style, anu the }ew Lon Blum, which
one has unueistoou Stenuhal the bettei.
But it is of no impoitance that this is an eiioneous notion;
the fact is that it is a gioup eiioi. The }ew must ueciue foi
himself whethei it is tiue oi false; inueeu he must piove it.
Anu yet people will always ieject the pioof which he
fuinishes. Be may go as fai as he wants in unueistanuing a
woik of ait, a custom, a peiiou, a style. What constitutes
the *)&" value of the object consiueieu, a value accessible
only to Fienchmen of the "ieal" Fiance, is exactly that
which is "beyonu" anu which cannot be expiesseu in
woius. In vain may he aigue about his cultuie, his
accomplishments; it is a }ewish cultuie; they aie }ewish
'accomplishments. Be is a }ew piecisely in that he uoes not
even suspect what ought to be unueistoou. Thus an
attempt is maue to peisuaue him that the tiue sense of
things must always escape him; theie is foimeu aiounu
him an impalpable atmospheie, which is the 7"$&/$"
Fiance, with its 7"$&/$" values, its 7"$&/$" tact, its 7"$&/$"
moiality, anu he has no pait in it.
Be can, inueeu, acquiie all the goous he wants, lanus anu
castles if he has the wheiewithal; but at the veiy moment
when he becomes a legal piopiietoi, the piopeity
unueigoes a subtle change in meaning anu value. 0nly a
Fienchman, the son of a Fienchman, son oi gianuson of a
peasant, is capable of possessing it ieally. To own a hut in
a village, it is not enough to have bought it with haiu cash.
0ne must know all the neighbouis, theii paients anu
gianupaients, the suiiounuing faims, the beeches anu
oaks of the foiest; one must know how to woik, fish, hunt;
one must have maue notches in the tiees in chiluhoou anu
have founu them enlaigeu in iipe olu age. You may be suie
that the }ew uoes not fulfil these conuitions. Foi that
mattei, peihaps the Fienchman uoesn't eithei, but he is

$)
gianteu a ceitain inuulgence. Theie is a Fiench way anu a
}ewish way of confusing oats anu wheat.

Thus the }ew iemains the stiangei, the intiuuei, the
unassimilateu at the veiy heait of oui society. Eveiything
is accessible to him, anu yet he possesses nothing; foi, he is
tolu, what one possesses is not to be bought. All that be
touches, all that he acquiies becomes uevaluateu in his
hanus; the goous of the eaith, the tiue goous, aie always
those which he has not. Be is well awaie that he has
contiibuteu as much as anothei to foiging the futuie of the
society that iejects him. But if the futuie is to be his, at
least he is iefuseu the past. If he tuins towaiu the past, he
sees that his iace has no pait in it. Call the ioll of the kings
of Fiance, theii ministeis, theii gieat captains, the aitists,
the men of leaining none weie }ews. Anu }ews uiu not
biing about the Fiench Revolution.
The ieason foi all this is simple. 0ntil the nineteenth
centuiy the }ews, like women, weie in a state of tutelage;
thus theii contiibution to political anu social life, like that
of women, is of iecent uate. The names of Einstein, of
Beigson, of Chagall, of Kafka aie enough to show what they
woulu have been able to biing to the woilu if they hau
been emancipateu eailiei. But that is of no impoitance; the
fact is theie. These aie Fienchmen who have no pait in the
histoiy of Fiance. Theii collective memoiy fuinishes them
only with obscuie iecollections of pogioms, of ghettos, of
exouuses, of gieat monotonous suffeiings, twenty
centuiies of iepetition, not of evolution. The }ew is not yet
histoiical, anu yet he is the most ancient of peoples, oi
neaily so. That is what gives him the aii of being
peipetually ageu anu yet always young: be has wisuom anu
no histoiy.
"Pay no attention to that," you will say. "We have only to
welcome him without ieseive; oui histoiy will be his

$(
histoiy, oi at least his son's." But that is what we take caie
not to uo. Thus he floats on, unceitain, upiooteu.
Noieovei, let him not tuin back towaiu Isiael to finu a
community anu a past to compensate foi those which aie
iefuseu him. That }ewish community which is baseu
neithei on nation, lanu, ieligion at least not in
contempoiaiy Fiance noi mateiial inteiest, but only on
an iuentity of situation, might inueeu be a tiue spiiitual
bonu of affection, of cultuie, anu of mutual aiu. But the
}ew's enemies will immeuiately say that this bonu is ethnic,
anu he himself, at a loss how to uesignate it, will peihaps
use the woiu iace. Then at one stioke he has justifieu the
anti-Semite: "You see veiy well that theie is a }ewish )#5";
they iecognize it themselves, anu besiues they ciowu
togethei eveiywheie." Anu, in fact, if the }ews want to
uiaw a legitimate piiue fiom this community, they must
inueeu enu up by exalting iacial qualities, since they
cannot take piiue in any collective woik that is specifically
}ewish, oi in a civilization piopeily }ewish, oi in a common
mysticism.

Thus the anti-Semite wins on all counts. In a woiu, the
}ew, an intiuuei into Fiench society, is compelleu to
iemain isolateu. If he uoes not consent, he is insulteu. But
if he consents, he is no moie ieauily assimilateu on that
account; he is toleiateu anu always with a uistiust that
uiives him on each occasion to "piove himself."
In case of wai oi civil uistuibance, the "tiue" Fienchman
has no pioofs to make; he simply fulfils his militaiy oi civil
obligations. But it is not the same foi the }ew. Be may be
suie that people aie going to make a stiict count of the
numbei of }ews in the aimy. Thus he suuuenly finus
himself answeiable foi all hi co-ieligionists. Even if he has
passeu the militaiy age he is going to feel the necessity of
enlisting whethei he uoes anything about it oi not

$*
because people aie pietenuing eveiywheie that }ews aie
slackeis. A iumoui not without founuation, some may say.
Not. at all. In an analysis of a }ewish complex maue by
Stekel, of which I will have moie to say latei, I ieau this
passage: "The Chiistians saiu" it was an Austiian }ewess
speaking "that the }ews always tiy to get out fiom unuei
a much as they can. Then my husbanu wanteu to
volunteei." Now this iefeiieu to the beginning of the wai
of 1914, anu Austiia hau hau no wai since that of 1866,
which was caiiieu on with a piofessional aimy. This
slanuei upon the Austiian }ews, which has bee spieau in
Fiance also, is simply the spontaneous fiuit of uistiust of
the }ew.

In 19S8, at the time of the inteinational ciisis that was
iesolveu at Nunich, the Fiench goveinment calleu up only
ceitain categoiies of the ieseive. The majoiity of the men
able to beai aims weie not yet mobilizeu. Alieauy,
howevei, stones weie being thiown thiough the stoie
winuows of one of my fiienus, a }ewish meichant at
Belleville, on the giounus that he was a slackei. Thus the
}ew, if he is to be left in peace, shoulu be mobilizeu aheau
of othei people; in case of famine, he shoulu be hungiiei
than otheis; if a geneial uisastei stiikes the countiy, he
shoulu be the one whom it hits haiuest.
This peipetual obligation to piove that he is Fiench puts
the }ew in a situation of guilt. If on eveiy occasion he uoes
not uo moie than eveiybouy else, much moie than
anybouy else, he is guilty, he is a uiity }ew anu one
might say, paiouying the woius of Beaumaichais: To juuge
by the qualities we uemanu of a }ew if he is to be
assimilateu as a "tiue" Fienchman, how many Fienchmen
woulu be founu woithy of being }ews in theii own
countiy.


$+
Since the }ew is uepenuent upon opinion foi his piofession,
his iights, anu his life, his situation is completely unstable.
Legally not open to attack, he is at the meicy of the whims
anu passions of the "ieal" society. Be caiefully watches the
piogiess of anti-Semitism; he tiies to foiesee ciises anu
gauge tienus in the same way that the peasant keeps watch
on the weathei anu pieuicts stoims. Be ceaselessly
calculates the effects that exteinal events will have on his
own position. Be may accumulate legal guaiantees, iiches,
honouis; he is only the moie vulneiable on that account,
anu he knows it. Thus it seems to him at one anu the same
time that his effoits aie always ciowneu with success
foi he knows the astonishing successes of his iace anu
that a cuise has maue them empty, foi he will nevei
acquiie the secuiity enjoyeu by the most humble Chiistian.
This is peihaps one of the meanings of R9" R)/#' the }ew,
Kafka. Like the heio of that novel, the }ew is engageu in a
long tiial. Be uoes not know his juuge scaicely even his
lawyeis; he uoes not know what is chaigeu with, yet he
knows that he is consiuei guilty; juugment is continually
put off foi a week, two weeks he takes auvantage of
these uelays to impiove his position in a thousanu ways,
but eveiy piecaution taken at ianuom pushes him a little
ueepei in guilt. Bis exteinal situation may appeai biilliant,
but the inteiminable tiial invisibly wastes him away, anu it
happens sometimes, as in the novel, that men seize him,
caiiy him off on the pietence that he has lost h case, anu
muiuei him in some vague aiea of the subuibs.

The anti-Semites aie iight in saying that the }ew eat uiinks,
ieaus, sleeps, anu uies like a }ew. What else coulu he uo.
They have subtly poisoneu his foou, his sleep, anu even his
ueath. Bow else coulu it be foi him, subjecteu eveiy
moment to this poisoning. As soon he steps outsiue, as
soon as he encounteis otheis, in the stieet oi in public

$!
places, as soon as he feels upon him the look of those
whom a }ewish newspapei calls "Them" a look that is a
mixtuie of feai, uisuain, iepioach, anu biotheily love he
must ueciue: uoes he oi uoes he not consent to be the
peison whose iole they make him play. Anu if he
consents, to what extent. If he iefuses, will he iefuse all
kinship with othei Isiaelites, oi only an ethnic
ielationship.
Whatevei he uoes, his couise has been set foi him. Be can
choose to be couiageous oi cowaiuly, sau oi gay; he can
choose to kill Chiistians oi to love them; but he cannot
choose not to be a }ew. 0i, iathei, if he uoes so choose, if
he ueclaies that }ews uo not exist, if he uenies with
violence anu uespeiation the }ewish chaiactei in himself, it
is piecisely in this that he is a }ew. I who am not a }ew, I
have nothing to ueny, nothing to piove; but if the }ew has
ueciueu that his iace uoes not exist, it is up to him to piove
it. To be a }ew is to be thiown into to be #:#$40$"4 to
the situation of a }ew; anu at the same time it is to be
iesponsible in anu thiough one's own peison foi the
uestiny anu the veiy natuie of the }ewish people. Foi,
whatevei the }ew says oi uoes, anu whethei he have a
cleai oi vague conception of his iesponsibilities, it is as if
all his acts weie subject to a Kantian impeiative, as if he
hau to ask himself befoie each act: "If all }ews acteu as I am
going to uo, what woulu happen to }ewish life." Anu to the
questions he asks himself (what woulu happen if all the
}ews weie Zionists, oi if, on the contiaiy, they weie all
conveiteu to Chiistianity. If all }ews uenieu they weie
}ews. etc.), he must make ieply, alone anu unaiueu, by
choosing himself.

If it is agieeu that man may be uefineu as a being having
fieeuom within the limits of a situation, then it is easy to
see that the exeicise of this fieeuom may be consiueieu as

$#
#&*9"$*/5 oi /$#&*9"$*/5 accoiuing to the choices maue in
the situation. Authenticity, it is almost neeuless to say,
consists in having a tiue anu luciu consciousness of the
situation, in assuming the iesponsibilities anu iisks that it
involves, in accepting it in piiue oi humiliation, sometimes
in hoiioi anu hate.

Theie is no uoubt that authenticity uemanus much couiage
anu moie than couiage. Thus it is not suipiising that one
finus it so iaiely. Nost membeis of the miuule class anu
most Chiistians aie not authentic, in the sense that they
iefuse to live up to theii miuuleclass oi Chiistian conuition
fully anu that they always conceal ceitain paits of
themselves fiom themselves. When the Communists set
uown as pait of theii piogiam "the iauicalization of the
masses," when Naix explains that the pioletaiian class
0&79* *0 :" conscious of itself, what uoes that mean if not
that the woikei, too, is not at fiist authentic.
Anu the }ew uoes not escape this iule: authenticity foi him
is to live to the full his conuition as }ew; inauthenticity is to
ueny it oi to attempt to escape fiom it. Inauthenticity is no
uoubt moie tempting foi him than foi othei men, because
the situation which he has to lay claim to anu to live in is
quite simply that of a maityi. What the least favouieu of
men oiuinaiily uiscovei in theii situation is a bonu of
conciete soliuaiity with othei men. The economic
conuition of the salaiieu man living in the peispective of
ievolution, oi the conuition of the membei of a peisecuteu
chuich, involves in itself a piofounu unity of mateiial anu
spiiitual inteiests. But we have shown that the }ews have
neithei community of inteiests noi community of beliefs.
They uo not have the same fatheilanu; they have no
histoiy. The sole tie that binus them is the hostility anu
uisuain of the societies which suiiounu them. Thus the

$$
authentic }ew is the one who asseits his claim in the face of
the uisuain shown towaiu him.

The situation he wishes fully to unueistanu anu live out is,
in time of social peace, almost incompiehensible: it is an
atmospheie, a subtle sense of faces anu of woius, a menace
that is concealeu in things, an abstiact bonu that unites
him to men who in all othei iespects aie veiy uiffeient
fiom him. Eveiything conspiies actually to show him to
his own eyes as a simple Fiench man. Foi the piospeiity of
his affaiis uepenus closely upon that of his countiy, the
fate of his sons is linkeu to peace, to the gieatness of
Fiance, anu the language he speaks anu the cultuie that
has been given him peimit him to base his calculations anu
his ieasoning on the piinciples common to the whole
nation. Be shoulu theiefoie only have to let himself go in
oiuei to foige that he is a }ew, if he uiu not uetect
eveiywheie this almost unuetectable poison the hostile
consciousness of otheis.
What is astonishing is ceitainly not that theie aie
inauthentic }ews; it is iathei that, in piopoition, they aie
fewei than the inauthentic Chiistians. Bowevei, it is by
taking auvantage of ceitain aspects of the conuuct of
inauthentic }ews that the anti-Semite has foigeu his
geneial mythology of the }ew. What chaiacteiizes the
inauthentic }ews is that they ueal with theii situation by
iunning away fiom it; they have chosen to ueny it oi to
ueny theii iesponsibilities, oi to ueny theii isolation, which
appeais intoleiable to them. That uoes no necessaiily
mean that they wish to uestioy the concept of the }ew oi
that they explicitly ueny the existence o a }ewish ieality.
But theii gestuies, sentiments anu act aim secietly at
uestioying this ieality.
In a woiu, the inauthentic }ews aie men whom othei men
take foi }ews anu who have ueciueu to iun away fiom this

$%
insuppoitable situation. The iesult is that they uisplay
vaiious types of behavioui not all of which aie piesent at
the same time in the same peison but each of which may
be chaiacteiizeu as an #3"$&" 0- -'/79*A The anti-Semite by
collecting anu assembling all these uistinct anu often
incompatible avenues of flight has tiaceu out a monstious
poitiait which is supposeu to be that of the }ew in geneial;
at the same time he explains these fiee effoits at escape
fiom a painful situation as heieuitaiy tiaits, engiaveu on
the veiy bouy of Isiael anu, consequently, incapable of
mouification.

If we wish to see the pioblem cleaily, we must take this
poitiait apait, iestoie the autonomy of these "avenues of
flight," anu piesent them in theii tiue chaiactei as
ventuies in behavioui insteau of innate qualities. It must
be unueistoou that the uesciiption of these avenues of
flight is applieu solely to the /$#&*9"$*/5 }ew (the teim
"inauthentic" implying no moial blame, of couise), anu that
it shoulu be supplementeu by a uesciiption of authentic
}ewishness. Finally, we must giasp the iuea that it is the
1/*&#*/0$ of the }ew which must unuei all ciicumstances
seive us as guiuing thieau. If we unueistanu this methou
anu if we apply it iigoiously, peihaps we will be able to
substitute the gieat Nanichaean myth about Isiael a few
tiuths which, while moie fiagmentaiy, aie moie accuiate.
What is the fiist tiait in the anti-Semitic mythology. It is,
we aie tolu, that the }ew is a complicateu being who passes
his time in self-analysis anu subtle setting. We aie quick to
call him a "splittei of haiis" without even asking ouiselves
whethei this tenuency to analysis anu intiospection is
compatible with the shaipness in business anu the blinu
aggiessiveness that also attiibuteu to him. Foi my pait, I
iecognize the effoit to escape piouuces in some }ews foi
most pait intellectuals an almost continuously ieflective

$&
attituue. But again we must unueistanu each othei. This
ieflective behavioui is not inheiiteu. It is an avenue of
flight, anu it is we who foice the }ew to flee.

Stekel, along with seveial othei psychoanalysts speaks of a
"}ewish complex," anu many aie the } who mention theii
"infeiioiity complex." I see no haim in using this
expiession if we unueistanu that this complex has not
been ieceiveu fiom the outsiue anu that }ew 5)"#*"1 *9/1
50@C'". when he chooses to live his situation in an
inauthentic mannei. Be has alloweu himself to be
peisuaueu by the anti-Semites; he is fiist victim of theii
piopaganua. Be aumits with them that, if *9")" /1 # !"86 he
must have the chaiacteiistics with which populai
malevolence enuows him, anu his effoit is to constitute
himself a maityi, in the piopei sense of the teim, that is, to
piove /$ 9/1 C")10$ that theie aie no }ews.
With him anxiety often takes a special foim; it becomes a
feai of acting oi feeling like a }ew. We aie familiai with
those neuiasthenics who aie haunteu by the feai of killing,
of jumping out of a winuow, of utteiing obscene woius.
Ceitain }ews aie in some uegiee compaiable to these
people, though theii anxiety iaiely attains a pathological
level. They have alloweu themselves to be poisoneu by the
steieotype that otheis have of them, anu they live in feai
that theii acts will coiiesponu to this steieotype.
Repeating a teim useu eailiei, we may say that theii
conuuct is peipetually ovei-ueteimineu fiom the insiue.
Theii acts have not only the motives which can be assigneu
to those of non-}ews inteiest, passion, altiuism, etc.
but they seek also to uistinguish themselves iauically fiom
the acts catalogueu as "}ewish." Bow many }ews aie
uelibeiately geneious, uisinteiesteu, anu even magnificent
simply :"5#&1" the }ew is oiuinaiily taken to be a man of
money. That in no way signifies that they have to stiuggle

$'
against "tenuencies" to avaiice theie is no ieason, a
piioii, foi }ews to be moie avaiicious than Chiistians it
means iathei that theii gestuies of geneiosity aie
poisoneu by the uecision to be geneious. Spontaneity anu
uelibeiate choice aie heie inextiicably mixeu. The enu
puisueu is to obtain a ceitain iesult in the exteinal woilu
anu at the same time to piove to oneself, to piove to
otheis, that theie is no such thing as }ewish nab

Thus many /$#&*9"$*/5 }ews play at not being }ews.
Seveial }ews have iepoiteu to me theii cuiious ieaction
aftei the aimistice. We know that the iole of }ews in the
Resistance was aumiiable; it was they foimeu the piincipal
cauies befoie the Communists went into action; foi foui
yeais they gave pioof couiage anu a spiiit of uecision
which it is a pleasuie to acknowleuge. Bowevei, ceitain of
them hesitateu a gieat ueal befoie "iesisting," foi the
Resistance appeaieu to them so completely in line with
}ewish inteiests that they weie ieluctant at fiist to engage
in it; they wanteu to make suie they weie iesisting not #1
!"81 but #1 G)"$59@"$A This sciupulousness shows
sufficiently the peculiai quality of theii uelibeiations:
}ewish factoi inteivenes on eveiy occasion anu is
impossible foi them to make a uecision baseu meiely the
puie anu simple examination of the facts. In a woiu, they
fall natuially into a state of ieflective self-consciousness.
Like the timiu peison, like the sciupulous peison, the }ew
is not content to act oi think; he sees himself act, he sees
himself think. We must iemaik, howevei, that }ewish
ieflectiveness is in itself C)#5*/5#'6 since it uoes not
oiiginate in uisinteiesteu cuiiosity oi in the uesiie foi
moial conveision. It is not the man but the !"8 whom the
}ews seek to know in themselves thiough intiospection;
anu they wish to know him /$ 0)4") *0 4"$K him. With
them it is not a question of iecognizing ceitain faults anu

%)
combating them, but of unueilining by theii conuuct the
fact that they uo not have those faults. Thus we may
explain that paiticulai quality of }ewish iiony which
exeicises itself most often at the expense of the }ew himself
anu which is a peipetual attempt to see himself fiom the
outsiue. The }ew, because he knows he is unuei
obseivation, takes the initiative anu attempts to look at
himself thiough the eyes of otheis. This objectivity towaiu
himself is still anothei iuse of inauthenticity: while he
contemplates himself with the "uetachment" of anothei, he
feels himself in effect 4"*#59"4 fiom himself; he becomes
anothei peison, a puie witness.

Bowevei, he knows that this uetachment fiom himself will
be effective only if it is iatifieu by otheis. That is why one
finus in him so often the faculty of assimilation. Be
absoibs all knowleuge with an aviuity which is not to be
confuseu with uisinteiesteu cuiiosity. Be hopes to become
"a man," nothing but a man, a man like all othei men, by
taking in all the thoughts of m, anu acquiiing a human
point of view of the univeise. Be cultivates himself in
oiuei to uestioy the }ew in himself, as if he wisheu to have
applieu to him but in mouifieu foim the phiase of
Teience: S/' 9&@# #'/"$&@ C&*0 ")70 90@0 1&@A
T

At the same time he tiies to lose himself in the ciow of
Chiistians. We have seen that the lattei have the ait anu
the auuacity to pietenu befoie the }ew that they a not
#$0*9") )#5"6 but puiely anu simply @"$E if the }ew is
fascinateu by Chiistians it is not because of theii viitues,
which he values little, but because they iepiesent
anonymity, humanity without iace. If he tiies to penetiate
the most exclusive ciicles, it is not because of that

7
"I am a man; nothing human, theiefoie, is alien to me." Teience.

%(
bounuless ambition with which he is iepioacheu so often
oi, iathei, that ambition has only one meaning: the }ew
seeks to be iecognizeu as a man by othei men. If he wishes
to slip in eveiywheie, it is because he cannot be at iest so
long as theie iemains a single place which iesists him anu
which, by iesisting him, makes him a }ew in his own eyes.
The piinciple behinu this uiive towaiu assimilation is an
excellent one: the }ew is claiming his iights as a
Fienchman. 0nfoitunately the iealisation of this
enteipiise iests on an inauequate founuation. Be wants
people to ieceive him as "a man," but even in the ciicles
which he has been able to entei, he is ieceiveu as a }ew. Be
is the iich oi poweiful }ew whom it is absolutely necessaiy
to associate with, oi the "goou" }ew, the exceptional }ew,
with whom one associates /$ 1C/*" 0- his iace.

The }ew is not unawaie of this, but if he aumitteu to
himself that he was ieceiveu as a }ew his enteipiise woulu
lose all meaning anu he woulu become uiscouiageu. Be is
theiefoie acting in bau faith: he is concealing the tiuth
fiom himself, though he knows it in his heait. Be conqueis
a position in his capacity as }ew; he keeps it with the
means he has at his uisposal, that is, with "}ewish" means,
but he consiueis that each new conquest is a symbol of a
highei step in the piocess of assimilation. It uevelops
automatically that anti-Semitism, which is the almost
immeuiate ieaction of the ciicles he has penetiateu, uoes
not long peimit him to iemain unawaie of what he woulu
so much like to ignoie. Yet the violence of the anti-Semite
has the paiauoxical effect of pushing the }ews to the
conquest of othei milieux anu othei gioups. In shoit, his
ambition is funuamentally a seaich foi secuiity, just as his
snobbism when he is a snob is an effoit to assimilate
national values (pictuies, books, etc.).


%*
Thus he moves iapiuly anu biilliantly up thiough all social
levels, but he iemains like a haiu keinel in the ciicles
which accept him, anu his assimilation is as ephemeial as it
is biilliant. Be is often iepioacheu foi this. Accoiuing to a
iemaik by Anui Siegfiieu, the Ameiicans believe that
theii anti-Semitism oiiginates in the fact that }ewish
immigiants, in appeaiance the fiist to be assimilateu, aie
still }ews in the seconu anu thiiu geneiations. This is
natuially inteipieteu as meaning that the }ew uoes not
sinceiely uesiie to be assimilateu anu that, behinu a
feigneu auaptability, theie is concealeu a uelibeiate anu
conscious attachment to the tiauitions of his iace. The
tiuth is exactly the contiaiy: it is because he is nevei
accepteu as a man, but always anu eveiywheie as *9" }ew
that the }ew is unassimilable.
Fiom this situation theie iesults a new paiauox: that the
inauthentic }ew wants to lose himself in the Chiistian
woilu anu yet he iemains fixeu in }ewish milieux.
Wheievei he intiouuces himself in oiuei to get away fiom
}ewish ieality, he senses that he has been accepteu as a }ew
anu is at eveiy moment iegaiueu as a }ew. Bis life among
Chiistians uoes not biing him the anonymity he seeks;
iathei, it is a peipetual tension. In his flight towaiu
mankinu he takes with him eveiywheie the image which
haunts him. That is what establishes among ill }ews a
soliuaiity which is not one of action oi inteiest, but of
situation. What unites them, even moie than the suffeiings
of two thousanu yeais, is the piesent hostility of
Chiistians. Insist as they may that chance alone has
gioupeu them in the same iesiuential aieas, in the same
apaitment houses, in the same enteipiises, theie is among
them a stiong anu complex tie which is woith analysis.

In effect, the }ew is to anothei }ew the only man with
whom he can say "we." What they have in common (at

%+
least all the inauthentic }ews) is the constant temptation to
consiuei that they "aie not like othei men," theii
susceptibility to the opinions of otheis, anu theii blinu anu
uespeiate uecision to iun away fiom that temptation.
When, theiefoie, they aie by themselves in the intimacy of
theii apaitments, by eliminating the non-}ewish witness
they eliminate }ewish ieality at the same time. No uoubt
those Chiistians who have penetiateu these inteiiois finu
theii inhabitants moie }ewish than evei, but that is
because they have alloweu themselves to ielax-which uoes
not mean that they abanuon themselves to the enjoyment
of theii }ewish "natuie," as they aie often accuseu of uoing,
but, on the contiaiy, that they foiget it. What woulu piove
this if that weie necessaiy is that veiy often
membeis of the same family uo not peiceive the ethnic
chaiacteiistics of theii ielatives (by ethnic chaiacteiistics I
mean heie the biological anu heieuitaiy facts which we
have accepteu as incontestable). I knew a }ewish woman
whose son hau to make some business tiips into Nazi
ueimany aiounu 19S4. This son hau the typical
chaiacteiistics of the Fiench }ew a hookeu nose,
piotiuuing eais, etc. but when we expiesseu anxiety
about what might happen to him uuiing one of his
absences, his mothei ieplieu: "0h, I am not woiiieu; he
uoesn't look like a }ew at all."

0nly, by a uialectic piopei to the inauthentic }ew, this
iecouise to inteiioiity, this effoit to constitute a }ewish
immanence by which each }ew insteau of being the witness
of otheis is meigeu in a collective subjectivity anu the
Chiistian is eliminateu as an onlookei, this anu all such
iuses of flight aie ieuuceu to nothing by the univeisal anu
constant piesence of the non-}ew. Even in theii most
intimate gatheiings the }ews coulu say of the non-}ew what
St. }ohn Peise saiu of the sun: "Be is not nameu but his

%!
piesence is among us." They cannot ignoie the fact that
theii veiy piopensity to associate togethei uefines them as
}ews in the minus of the Chiistians. Anu when they emeige
in public, theii soliuaiity with theii coieligionists maiks
them as if with a bianu. The }ew who encounteis anothei
}ew in the uiawing ioom of a Chiistian is a little like a
Fienchman who meets a compatiiot abioau. Yet the
Fienchman ueiives pleasuie fiom asseiting to the woilu
that he is a Fienchman, wheieas the }ew, even if he weie
the only Isiaelite in a non-}ewish company, woulu foice
himself not to feel that he was a }ew. When theie is
anothei }ew with him, he feels himself enuangeieu befoie
the otheis, anu he who a moment befoie coulu not even
see the ethnic chaiacteiistics of his son oi his nephew now
looks at his coieligionist with the eyes of an anti-Semite,
spying out with a mixtuie of feai anu fatalism the objective
signs of theii common oiigin.
Be is so afiaiu of the uiscoveiies the Chiistians aie going to
make that he hastens to give them waining, he becomes
himself an anti-Semite by impatience anu foi the sake of
the otheis. Each }ewish tiait he uetects is like a uaggei
thiust, foi it seems to him that he finus it in himself, but
out of ieach, objective, incuiable, anu publisheu to the
woilu. It uoes not gieatly mattei who @#$/-"1*1 the }ewish
iace. The moment it is manifesteu, all the effoits of the }ew
to ueny it aie in vain.

We know that the enemies of Isiael aie ieauy to suppoit
theii own opinion with the statement that "theie is no one
moie anti-Semitic than the }ew." In actual fact, this anti-
Semitism of the }ew is boiioweu. It is fiist of all the painful
obsession of finuing in his paients, in those neai him, the
uefects which he wishes to ieject with all his stiength.
Stekel, in the case mentioneu eailiei, iepoits the following:
"In the householu anu in the euucation of the chiluien

%#
eveiything must be unuei the uiiection |of the }ewish
husbanuj. It is even woise in society. Be puisues |the
wifej with his eyes anu ciiticizes hei to such a uegiee that
she loses countenance. As a young giil, she was piouu;
eveiybouy aumiieu hei uistinguisheu anu assuieu
mannei. Now she tiembles all the time foi feai of making a
mistake; she feais the ciiticism that she ieaus in the eyes
of hei husbanu. U* *9" '"#1* @/19#C6 9" @/79* )"C)0#59
9") 8/*9 #5*/$7 !"8/19AM

0ne can well imagine this uiama between two peisons: the
husbanu ciitical, almost peuantic, constantly ieflective
iepioaching his wife foi being }ewish because be is
fiighteneu to ueath of appeaiing that way himself; the
woman, ciusheu by his hostile anu pitiless look, feeling
that she is miieu uown in "}ewishness" in spite of heiself,
feeling, without unueistanuing why, that hei eveiy
gestuie, hei. eveiy phiase, is off key, anu may ieveal hei
oiigin to all eyes. It is hell foi both of them. But we must
see, too, that this anti-Semitism of the }ew is an effoit to
make himself an objective witness anu juuge, anu thus
escape liability foi the faults asciibeu to his "iace."
In the same way, theie aie many who apply a luciu anu
pitiless seveiity even to themselves, because this seveiity
piouuces a uoubling of peisonality by which they escape a
sense of guilt thiough becoming ;&47"1A

The manifest piesence in anothei of that "}ewish ieality"
which he iefuses to aumit in himself helps to cieate in the
inauthentic }ew a mystical anu pielogical feeling of his
kinship with othei }ews. This sentiment is on the whole a
iecognition of paiticipation the }ews "paiticipate" in
each othei; the life of each is haunteu by the lives of
otheis-anu this mystical communion becomes all the

%$
stiongei the moie the inauthentic }ew seeks to ueny that
he is a }ew.

I shall give but one example in suppoit of this statement.
We know that piostitutes abioau aie fiequently Fiench,
anu it is nevei pleasant foi a Fienchman to encountei a
Fienchwoman in a biothel in ueimany oi in Aigentina.
Bowevei, the Fienchman's sense of his paiticipation in the
national ieality is of quite uiffeient natuie fiom the }ew's
sense of paiticipation in his people. Fiance is a $#*/0$E the
patiiot can thus consiuei himself as belonging to a
collective ieality whose foim is expiesseu by its economic,
cultuial, anu militaiy activity; anu if ceitain seconuaiy
aspects aie uispleasing, be is able to oveilook them. That
is not the ieaction of a }ew who meets a }ewess unuei
similai conuitions. In spite of himself, he sees in the
humiliating situation of a piostitute the humiliating
situation of Isiael. I have heaiu seveial anecuotes on this
subject, but I shall cite only one of them, which I have
heaiu uiiectly fiom the peison to whom it happeneu. A
}ew goes to a house of piostitution, chooses one of the
women, anu goes upstaiis with hei. She tells him she is a
}ew. Be finus himself impotent, anu veiy soon is oveicome
with an intoleiable sense of humiliation that expiesses
itself in spasms of vomiting. It is not that sexual
inteicouise with a }ewess is iepugnant to him aftei all,
}ews maiiy each othei; it is iathei the sense that he, is
contiibuting peisonally to the humiliation of the }ewish
iace in the peison of the piostitute anu, consequently, in
his own peison. In the last analysis it is 9" who is
piostituteu, humiliateu; it is he anu the whole }ewish
people.

Thus, no mattei what he may uo, the inauthentic }ew is
possesseu by the consciousness of being a }ew. At that

%%
veiy moment when he is foicing himself by his whole
conuuct to ueny the tiaits asciibeu to him, he feels that he
can see these tiaits in otheis, anu thus they ietuin to him
inuiiectly. Be seeks anu flees his coieligionists; he affiims
that he is only one man among otheis, anu like otheis, yet
he feels himself compiomiseu by the uemeanoui of the
fiist passei-by, if that passei-by is a }ew. Be makes himself
an anti-Semite in oiuei to bieak all his ties with the }ewish
community; yet he finus that community again in the
uepths of his heait, foi he expeiiences in his veiy flesh the
humiliations that the anti-Semites impose upon othei
}ews. What stamps the inauthentic }ew is piecisely this
peipetual oscillation between piiue anu a sense of
infeiioiity, between the voluntaiy anu passionate negation
of the tiaits of his iace anu the mystic anu cainal
paiticipation in the }ewish ieality.

This painful anu ineluctable situation may leau a ceitain
numbei of them to masochism, foi masochism seems to
offei a tempoiaiy solution, a soit of iespite oi iepose.
What obsesses the }ew is that he is iesponsible foi himself,
like all men, that he uoes fieely what he consiueis it goou
to uo, anu that, neveitheless, a hostile society always sees
his acts staineu with the }ewish chaiactei. Thus it seems to
him that he makes himself a }ew at the veiy moment he
foices himself to flee the }ewish ieality; that he is engageu
in a stiuggle in which he is always vanquisheu anu in
which he becomes his own enemy; anu to the uegiee that
he is conscious of being iesponsible foi himself, it seems to
him that be has the ciushing iesponsibility of making
himself a }ew befoie othei }ews anu befoie Chiistians.
Thiough him, in spite of him, the }ewish ieality exists.

Now, masochism is the uesiie to have oneself tieateu as an
object. Bumiliateu, uespiseu, oi simply neglecteu, the

%&
masochist has the joy of seeing himself moveu, hanuleu,
utilizeu like a thing. Be tiies to think of himself as an
inanimate thing, anu theieby to abuicate his
iesponsibilities. This complete abuication attiacts ceitain
}ews, weaiy of the stiuggle against theii impalpable
}ewishness, always uisowneu anu toimenteu yet always
ienascent. They fail to see that authenticity manifests
itself in ievolt, anu is not to be achieveu meiely by the
aumission that they aie }ews; they seek only to be maue
}ews by the looks, the violence, the uisuain of otheis, by
having qualities anu a fate #**#59"4 to them to be }ews
as a stone is a stone: thus foi a moment they can finu ielief
fiom that bewitcheu fieeuom which uoes not peimit them
to escape fiom theii conuition, anu which seems to exist
only in oiuei to impose upon them a iesponsibility foi
what they ieject with all theii stiength.
To be suie, one must iecognize that this masochism has
othei causes as well. In an aumiiable anu ciuel passage of
U$*/70$"6 Sophocles wiites: "You have too much piiue foi a
peison sunk in misfoitune." It might be saiu that one of
the essential tiaits of the }ew is that, in contiast to
Antigone, an eveiyuay acquaintance with misfoitune
makes him mouest in catastiophe. It is not to be concluueu
fiom this, as is often uone, that he is aiiogant when he
succeeus anu abject when he fails. It is quite anothei
mattei: he has assimilateu the cuiious auvice which uieek
wisuom gave to the uaughtei of 0euipus; he has leaineu
that mouesty, silence, patience aie piopei to misfoitune,
because misfoitune is alieauy a sin in the eyes of men. Anu
ceitainly such wisuom can tuin into masochism, into a
taste foi suffeiing. But the essential thing is still the
temptation to be uivesteu of oneself, anu to be maikeu
finally anu foievei with the natuie anu the uestiny of a }ew,
ielieveu of all iesponsibility anu neeu to stiuggle.

%'
Thus the anti-Semitism anu the masochism of the
inauthentic }ew iepiesent in a sense the two extiemes of
his possible behavioui: in anti-Semitism he uenies his iace
in oiuei to be no moie than a puie inuiviuual, a man
without blemish in the miust of othei men; in masochism,
he iepuuiates his libeity as a man in oiuei to escape the
sin of being a }ew anu in oiuei to seek the iepose anu
passivity of a thing.
Bowevei, the anti-Semite auus a new touch to the poitiait:
the }ew, he tells us, is an abstiact intellectual, a puie
ieasonei. Anu we peiceive at once that the teims #:1*)#5*6
)#*/0$#'/1*6 /$*"''"5*&#' heie take on a pejoiative sense-, it
coulu not be otheiwise, since the anti-Semite lays claim to
a conciete anu iiiational possession of the values of the
nation. But if we iecall that iationalism was one of the
piincipal instiuments of human libeiation, we must iefuse
to consiuei it a puie play of abstiactions; on the contiaiy,
we must insist on its cieative powei. In iationalism two
centuiies anu not the least impoitant placeu all theii
hope; fiom iationalism spiang the sciences anu theii
piactical application; it was an iuea anu a passion; it tiieu
to biing men togethei by uncoveiing foi them univeisal
tiuths on which they coulu all ieach agieement, anu in its
naive anu agieeable optimism it uelibeiately confounueu
evil: with eiioi. We shall unueistanu nothing about }ewish
iationalism if we see it as some kinu of abstiact taste foi
uisputation, insteau of what it is a youthful anu lively
love of men.

At the same time, howevei, it is also an avenue of flight I
may even say, the ioyal ioau of flight. 0p to this point, we
have uiscusseu those }ews who attempt, in theii inuiviuual
peisonalities, to ueny theii situation as }ews. But theie aie
otheis who have chosen to espouse a conception of the
woilu that excluues the veiy iuea of iace. No uoubt this is

&)
ieally an attempt to conceal fiom themselves theii own
situation as }ews; but if they coulu succeeu in peisuauing
themselves anu otheis that the veiy iuea of }ews is
contiauictoiy, if they coulu succeeu in establishing theii
vision of the woilu in such fashion that they became blinu
to the ieality of }ewishness just as the coloui-blinu peison
is blinu to ieu oi gieen, coulu they not then ueclaie in goou
faith that they aie "men among men".

The iationalism of }ews is a passion the passion foi the
univeisal. If they have chosen this iathei than something
else, it is in oiuei to fight the paiticulaiist conceptions that
set them apait. 0f all things in the woilu, ieason is the
most wiuely shaieu; it belongs to eveiybouy anu to
nobouy; it is the same to all. If ieason exists, then theie is
no Fiench tiuth oi ueiman tiuth; theie is no Negio tiuth
oi }ewish tiuth. Theie is only one Tiuth, anu he is best
who wins it. In the face of univeisal anu eteinal laws, man
himself is univeisal. Theie aie no moie }ews oi Poles;
theie aie men who live in Polanu, otheis who aie
uesignateu as "of }ewish faith" on theii family papeis, anu
agieement is always possible among them as soon as
uiscussion beais on the univeisal.
Recall the poitiait of the philosophei that Plato sketches in
the %9#"40D how the awakening to ieason is foi him ueath
to the bouy, to paiticulaiities of chaiactei; how the
uisembouieu philosophei, puie lovei of abstiact anu
univeisal tiuth, loses all his inuiviuual tiaits in oiuei to
become a univeisal look of inquiiy. It is piecisely this soit
of uisincaination that ceitain }ews seek. The best way to
feel oneself no longei a }ew is to ieason, foi ieasoning is
valiu foi all anu can be ietiaceu by all. Theie is not a
}ewish way of mathematics; the }ewish mathematician
becomes a univeisal man when he ieasons. Anu the anti-

&(
Semite who follows his ieasoning becomes his biothei,
uespite his own iesistance.

Thus the iationalism to which the }ew auheies so
passionately is fiist of all an exeicise of asceticism anu of
puiification, an escape into the univeisal. The young }ew
who feels a taste foi biilliant anu abstiact aigument is like
the infant who touches his bouy in oiuei to become
acquainteu with it: he expeiiments with anu inspects his
intoxicating conuition as univeisal man; on a supeiioi level
he iealizes that accoiu anu assimilation which is uenieu
him on the social level. The choice of iationalism is foi him
the choice of a human uestiny anu a human natuie. That is
why it is at once both tiue anu false that the }ew is "moie
intelligent than the Chiistian." We shoulu say iathei that
he has a taste foi puie intelligence, that he loves to
exeicise it with iefeience to anything anu eveiything, that
the use he makes of it is not thwaiteu by the innumeiable
taboos which still affect the Chiistian, oi by a ceitain type
of paiticulaiist sensibility which the non-}ew cultivates
willingly. Anu we shoulu auu that theie is in the }ew a soit
of impassioneu impeiialism of ieason: foi he wishes not
only to convince otheis that he is iight; his goal is to
peisuaue them that theie is an absolute anu unconuitioneu
value to iationalism. Be feels himself to be a missionaiy of
the univeisal; against the univeisalism of the Catholic
ieligion, fiom which he is excluueu, he asseits the
"catholicity" of the iational, an instiument by which to
attain to the tiuth anu establish a spiiitual bonu among
men. It is not by chance that Lon Biunschvicg, a }ewish
philosophei, biings togethei in his wiitings the piogiess of
ieason anu the piogiess of &$/-/5#*/0$ (unification of iueas,
unification of men).


&*
The anti-Semite iepioaches the }ew with "not being
cieative, oi with having "a uestiuctive intelligence." This
absuiu accusation (Spinoza, Pioust, Kafka, Baiius Nilhauu,
Chagall, Einstein, Beigson-aie they not }ews.) has been
given a semblance of tiuth by the fact that the }ewish
intelligence willingly takes a ciitical tuin. But heie again it
is not a question of the uisposition of ceiebial cells but of a
choice of weapons. In effect, the }ew finus aiiayeu against
him the iiiational poweis of tiauition, of iace, of national
uestiny, of instinct: it is pietenueu that these poweis have
built monuments, a cultuie, a histoiy piactical values
that ietain much of the iiiationality of theii oiigins anu aie
accessible only to intuition. The uefence of the Isiaelite is
to ueny intuition as well as the iiiational, to make the
obscuie poweis vanish magic, unieason, eveiything that
cannot be explaineu on the basis of univeisal piinciples,
eveiything that betiays a tenuency to the singulai anu the
exceptional. Be is uistiustful on piinciple of those
totalities which the Chiistian minu fiom time to time
piouuces: he 59#''"$7"1A
No uoubt in this connection one can speak of uestiuction,
but what the }ew wishes to uestioy is stiictly I localizeu; it
is the ensemble of iiiational values that piesent
themselves to immeuiate cognition without pioof. The }ew
uemanus pioof foi eveiything that his a auveisaiy
auvances, because thus he pioves himself. Be uistiusts
intuition because /* /1 $0* 0C"$ *0 4/15&11/0$ anu because, in
consequence, it enus by sepaiating men. If he ieasons anu
uisputes with his auveisaiy, is to establish the unity of
intelligence. Befoie any uebate he wishes agieement on
the piinciples with which the uisputants stait; by means of
this pieliminaiy agieement he offeis to constiuct a human
oiuei base on the univeisality of human natuie. The
peipetual ciiticism with which he is iepioacheu conceals a
nave belief that violence is in no way necessaiy in human

&+
ielations. Wheie the anti-Semite the fascist, etc., staiting
out with intuitions that aie in communicable anu that he
wishes to be incommunicable, must use foice in oiuei to
impose the illuminations be cannot impait, the inauthentic
}ew seeks to uissolve by ciitical analysis all that may
sepaiate men anu leau them to violence, since it is he who
will be the fiist victim of that violence.

I am awaie that Spinoza, Busseil, anu Beigson have maue
place foi intuition in theii systems. But the intuition of
Spinoza anu Busseil is )#*/0$#'6 which means that it is
baseu on ieason, is guaianteeu by ciiticism, anu has
univeisal tiuth as its object. It has no iesemblance to the
Pascalian subtlety of spiiit, anu it is this lattei
unansweiable, emotional, baseu on a thousanu
impeiceptible peiceptions which to the }ew seems his
woist enemy. As foi Beigson, his philosophy offeis, the
cuiious appeaiance of an anti-intellectualist uoctiine
constiucteu entiiely by the most iational anu most ciitical
of intelligences. It is thiough aigument that he establishes
the existence of puie uuiation, of philosophic intuition;
anu that veiy intuition which uiscoveis uuiation oi life, is
itself univeisal, since anyone may piactice it, anu it leaus
towaiu the univeisal, since its objects can be nameu anu
conceiveu. I iealize that Beigson has his hesitations about
using language, but in the enu he peimits woius to seive as
guiues, as inuicatois, as half-faithful messengeis. Who
woulu ask moie of them. Anu notice how completely at
ease he is in aigument. Reau again the fiist chaptei of the
essay on immeuiate sense uata, the classical ciiticism of
psycho-physiological paiallelism, the ciiticism of Bioca's
theoiy of aphasia.
In fact, just as it was possible to say with Poincai that
non-Eucliuean geometiy is a mattei of uefinition anu
comes into being as soon as it is ueciueu to call ceitain type

&!
of cuive stiaight foi example, the ciicumfeiences that
may be tiaceu on the suiface of spheie so the
philosophy of Beigson is a iationalism which exeicises the
piivilege of a special language Beigson has chosen, in
effect, to apply the teims "life," "puie uuiation," etc., to
what eailiei philosopheis ha calleu "mattei," anu the
compiehension of this matt he has calleu "intuition." Since
that compiehension must be piepaieu foi by ieseaich anu
ciiticism, since it takes holu of a univeisal anu not of
incommunicable paiticulaiities, it amounts to the same
thing whethei we call it iiiational intuition oi a synthetic
function ieason. If quite piopeily we chaiacteiize
the philosophy of Kieikegaaiu oi of Novalis as
iiiationalism, then peihaps Beigson's system is a
iationalism that has unueigone a change of name.

Foi my pait, I see it as the supieme uefence of the
peisecuteu: to attack in oiuei to uefenu oneself, to concui
the iiiationalism of the auveisaiy on its own giounu
that is, to ienuei it haimless anu assimilate it to
constiuctive ieason. Anu, as a mattei of fact, wheie the
iiiationalism of a Soiel leaus stiaight to violence, anu, in
consequence, to anti-Semitism, the iiiationalism of
Beigson is peifectly haimless anu can seive only a
univeisal ieconciliation.

This univeisalism, this ciitical iationalism, is what one
noimally finus in the uemociat. In his abstiact libeialism,
he affiims that }ews, Chinese, Negioes ought to have the
same iights as othei membeis of society, but he uemanus
these iights foi them as men, not as conciete anu
inuiviuual piouucts of histoiy. Thus ceitain }ews look at
theii own peisonalities with the eyes of the uemociat.
Baunteu by the spectie of violence, by the unassimilateu
iesiuues of paiticulaiist anu waiiioi societies, they uieam

&#
of a contiactual community in which thought itself woulu
be establisheu unuei foim of contiact since it woulu be
a uialogue in which the uisputants woulu agiee on
piinciples at the stait anu in which the "social contiact"
woulu be the sole collective bonu. The }ews aie the
miluest of men, passionately hostile to violence. That
obstinate sweetness which they conseiv4 in the miust of
the most atiocious peisecution, that sense of justice anu of
ieason which they Put up as theii sole uefence against a
hostile, biutal, anu unjust society, is peihaps the best pait
of the message they biing to us anu the tiue maik of theii
gieatness.
The anti-Semite at once seizes on this fiee effoit of the }ew
to live in anu mastei his situation; he makes it into a fixeu
chaiacteiistic manifesting the }ew's incapacity to become
assimilateu. Foi him, the }ew is no longei a iationalist but
a ieasonei; his quest is not a positive seaich foi the
univeisal, but pioof of his incapacity to take holu of vital
iacial anu national values; the spiiit of fiee ciiticism on
which he bases his hope of uefenuing himself against
supeistition anu myth becomes the satanic spiiit of
negation, a viius of uestiuction. Insteau of appieciating
this spiiit as an instiument of self-ciiticism oiiginating
spontaneously in mouem society, the anti-Semite sees it as
a peimanent thieat to national ties anu Fiench values.
Rathei than ueny the love of ceitain }ews foi the exeicise
of ieason, it has seemeu to me moie tiue anu moie useful
to attempt to explain it.

It is also as an attempt to escape that we must inteipiet the
attituue some }ews assume towaiu theii own bouies.
We know that the sole ethnic chaiacteiistics of the }ews
aie physical. The anti-Semite has seizeu upon this fact anu
has tiansfoimeu it into a myth: he pietenus to be able to
uetect his enemy at one glance. The ieaction of ceitain

&$
Isiaelites, theiefoie, is to ueny the bouy that betiays them.
Natuially this negation will vaiy in intensity as theii
physical appeaiance is moie oi less ievealing; in any case,
they uo not feel towaiu theii bouies that complacency, that
tianquil sentiment of piopeity which chaiacteiizes most
"Aiyans."
Foi these lattei the bouy is a fiuit of the Fiench soil; they
possess it by that same piofounu anu magical paiticipation
which assuies them the enjoyment of theii lanu anu theii
cultuie. Because they aie piouu of it, they have attacheu to
it a ceitain numbei of values that aie stiictly iiiational but
aie intenueu to expiess the iuea of '/-" as such. Schelei has
accuiately calleu them "vital values"; in effect, they
concein neithei the elementaiy neeus of the bouy noi the
uemanus of the spiiit, but a ceitain blossoming, a ceitain
biological style that seems to be a manifestation of the
intimate functioning of the oiganism, the haimony anu
inuepenuence of the oigans, the cellulai metabolism, anu
above all the "life plan," that blinu anu wily uesign which is
the veiy essence of life. uiace, nobility, vivacity aie among
these values. In fact, we asciibe them even to animals: we
speak of the giace of a cat, of the nobility of the eagle.
It is obvious that people intiouuce a gieat numbei of these
biological values into the concept of )#5"A Is not iace itself
a puie vital value; uoes it not enclose its basic stiuctuie a
juugment of value, since the v iuea of iace implies that of
inequality. Bence the Chiistian, the Aiyan, feels his bouy
in a special way. Be uoes not have a puie anu simple
consciousness the massive mouifications of his oigans; the
messages anu appeals that his bouy senus him come with
ceit coefficients of iueality, anu aie always moie oi I
symbolic of vital values. Be even uevotes a poition his
activity to piocuiing peiceptions of himself f coiiesponu to
his vital iueal: the nonchalance of elegant, the vivacity anu
"stii" which chaiacteiize stylish mannei in ceitain epochs,

&%
the feiocious aii the Italian fascist, the giace of women
all these seek to expiess the aiistociacy of the bouy. Anu
to these values aie natuially linkeu some anti-values, such
the uiscieuit attaching to the "lowei functions" of bouy, oi
ceitain coues of behavioui anu sentiments mouesty, foi
example. The lattei, ceitainly, is meiely a sense of shame
at showing one's nakeuness is also a way of making the
bouy piecious, a iefusal to see the bouy as a meie
instiument: the bouy is hiuuen in its sanctuaiy of clothing
like an object of auoiation.

The inauthentic }ew is uepiiveu of his vital values the
Chiistian. If he becomes conscious of his bouy, concept of
iace immeuiately appeais to poison his intimate
sensations. The values of nobility anu giace have been
pie-empteu by the Aiyans, who iefuse them to him. If he
accepteu these values he woulu be constiaineu peihaps to
ieconsiuei the notion of ethnic supeiioiity with all its
consequences. In the veiy name of &$/3")1#' @#$, he
iefuses to lenu an eai to the piivate messages his oiganism
senus him; in the name of iationality he iejects iiiational
values anu accepts only spiiitual values. 0niveisality being
foi him at the summit of the scale of values, he conceives of
a soit of &$/3")1#' #$4 )#*/0$#'/V"4 :04K. Be uoes not have
an ascetic's uisuain foi his bouy, be uoes not call it a "iag"
oi a "beast," but neithei uoes he see it as an object of
veneiation. Insofai as he uoes not actually foiget it, he
tieats it as an instiument, which he conceins himself with
only in oiuei to auapt it with piecision to his enus.

Anu just as he iefuses to consiuei the iiiational values of
life, so he iefuses to set up a hieiaichy among the natuial
functions. This iefusal has two puiposes: on the one hanu
it entails a uenial of the ethnic specificity of Isiael, anu on
the othei it is an offensive weapon aimeu at peisuauing

&&
Chiistians that theii bouies aie only instiuments. That
"lack of shame" with which the anti-Semite iepioaches
ceitain }ews has no othei oiigin. It is piimaiily an effoit to
tieat the bouy iationally. If the bouy is a mechanism, why
cast an inteiuict upon its neeus of excietion. Why exeicise
a peipetual contiol ovei it. It must be caieu foi, cleaneu,
maintain without joy, without love, anu without shame
like machine.

Anu sometimes, inueeu, theie is also a ceitain uespaii
behinu this lack of shame: what is the goou veiling a bouy
that the gaze of the Aiyans has uenounceu anu foi all. To
be a }ew in the eyes of the woilu is that not woise than
being nakeu. 0f couise, iationalism is not confineu to the
}ews: theie aie a many Chiistians uoctois, foi example
who assume such a iational point of view towaiu theii
own bouies, oi the bouies of theii chiluien. But in such
cases a mattei of a conquest, of an enfianchisement which
coexists, usually, with many pielogical suivivals. The }ew,
on the othei hanu, is not tiying to ciiticize the values; he
has become such that he has no feeling them.
It shoulu be auueu, howevei, as a point against anti-Semite,
that this bouily uneasiness that occuis among }ews may
have quite opposite iesults anu leau to shame of the bouy
anu an extieme moues have been tolu of many }ews who
go fai beyonu Chiistians in this iespect anu whose
constant concein to conceal theii bouies. Anu theie aie
otheis who aie pieoccupieu with spiiitualizing theii
bouies, that is, clothing them in spiiitual signification, since
they ueny them vital values; to a Chiistian the faces anu
gestuies of ceitain }ews aie often embaiiassing because of
what they signify they expiess intelligence, goouness,
iesignation, oi pain too cleaily anu foi too long a time.


&'
It is customaiy to make fun of the iapiu anu voluble
gestuies that the }ew makes with his hanus when he
speaks though this mimic vivacity is actually less
wiuespieau than people think. It is highly impoitant that
we uistinguish this tiait fiom behavioui that iesembles it
in appeaiance, such as that of the typical citizen of
Naiseille, foi example. The mimiciy of the Naiseillais
exaggeiateu, iapiu, unquenchable goes with his inteiioi
fiie, his constant neivousness, his uesiie to ienuei with the
whole bouy what he sees anu what he feels. In the }ew
theie is piimaiily a uesiie to be totally meaningful, to feel
the oiganism as a meuium in the seivice of an iuea, to
tianscenu the bouy that weighs him uown anu go beyonu it
towaiu objects oi tiuths susceptible to ieason. Let me
hasten to auu that in such uelicate matteis we must piotect
ouiselves with all soits of ieseivations. What we have just
saiu uoes not apply to all inauthentic }ews; above all, it
vaiies in impoitance with the geneial attituue of the }ew,
uepenuing on his euucation, his oiigin, anu especially the
geneial pattein of his behavioui.

It seems to me that one might explain in the san way the
famous }ewish "lack of tact." (0f couise, the is a
consiueiable amount of malice in this accusation.) In the
last analysis what we call tact is connecteu with "subtlety
of spiiit," a thing the }ew uoes not tiust. T act with tact is
to appieciate a situation at a glance, t embiace it as a
whole, to feel it iathei than to analyze it, but it is at the
same time to uiiect one's conuuct by iefeience to a
multituue of inuistinct piinciples, of which some concein
vital values anu otheis expiess ceiemonies anu tiauitions
of politeness that aie altogethei iiiational. Thus to act
"with tact" implies that the uoei of the act has auopteu a
ceitain conception of the woilu, one that is tiauitional,
iitual, anu synthetic one foi which 9" 5#$ 7/3" $0 )"#10$A It

')
implies also paiticulai sense of psychological ensembles, it
is in no sense 5)/*/5#'6 anu we might auu that it takes on it
whole meaning only in a stiictly uefineu community with
common iueas, moies, anu customs. The }ew ha as much
natuial tact as anybouy, if by that is unuei stoou a basic
compiehension of otheis, but he uoesn't 1""I to have it.

To agiee to base his conuuct on tact woulu be t iecognize
that ieason is not a sufficient guiue in human ielations anu
that tiauitional anu obscuie poweis of intuition may be
supeiioi to it when it is a question of auapting oneself to
othei people oi of hanuling them. That woulu mean to
aumit a kinu of casuistiy, a moiality of paiticulai cases,
anu thus to ienounce the iuea of a univeisal human natuie
that uemanus univeisal tieatment; it woulu be an
aumission that conciete situations, as well as conciete
men, cannot be compaieu; it woulu mean a ielapse into
paiticulaiism. Anu by that the }ew woulu assist in his own
uownfall, foi in the name of this tact the anti-Semite
uenounces him as a paiticulai case anu excluues him fiom
the national community.
The }ew has a maikeu inclination to believe that the woist
uifficulties may be iesolveu by ieason; he uoes not 1"" the
iiiational, the magical, the conciete anu paiticulai nuance;
he 40"1 $0* :"'/"3" in singulaiities of sentiment. By a veiy
unueistanuable uefence ieaction, this man who lives by
the opinion that otheis have of him tiies to ueny the values
of opinion. Be is tempteu to apply to men the ieasoning
which is suiteu to objects; he moves towaiu the analytic
iationalism of the engineei anu the woikei: not because he
is foimeu oi attiacteu by objects but because he is iejecteu
by men. Anu the analytical psychology he constiucts
peimits him ieauily to ieuuce the synthetic stiuctuies of
consciousness to a play of inteiests, to the composition of
appetites, to the algebiaic sum of tenuencies. The ait of

'(
uominating, of ieuucing, oi of peisuauing becomes iational
calculation. 0nly, it follows inevitably that this explanation
of human conuuct by univeisal notions entails the iisk of
abstiaction.
Inueeu, it is the taste foi abstiaction that explains the }ew's
special ielationship to money. }ews love money, we aie
tolu. Yet this collective consciousness that is eagei to paint
the }ew as aviu foi gain iaiely confuse him with that othei
populai myth of the misei: the munificent piouigality of
the }ew is even a favouiite them of the anti-Semite's
accusations. Ceitainly, if the }ew loves money, it is not
because he has any paiticulai appetite foi coppei oi golu
oi bank notes: foi him money often assumes the abstiact
foim of shaies of stock checks, bank ueposits it is not to
its sensible configuiation but to its abstiact foim that he
becomes attacheu.
Actually it is the powei of puichase that appeals to him,
anu if he piefeis this foim of piopeity to all othei it is
because it is univeisal. Appiopiiation by puichase uoes
not uepenu on the iace of the buyei; it uoes no vaiy with
his iuiosynciasies. The piice of the object is set in
iefeience to any buyei, who is set apait only by the fact
that he has the amount wiitten on the ticket. Anu when
that sum is paiu, the buyei is legally piopiietoi of the
object. Thus piopeity by puichase is an abstiact anu
univeisal foim of piopiietoiship, in contiast to the
singulai anu iiiational owneiship by paiticipation.

Beie theie is a vicious ciicle: The iichei a }ew is, the
gieatei the tenuency of the tiauitionalist anti-Semite to
insist that tiue piopeity is not legal piopeity but an
auaptation of bouy anu spiiit to the object possesseu. In
this way, as we have seen, the pooi man iecoveis the soil
anu the spiiitual goous of Fiance. Anti-Semitic liteiatuie
abounus in piouu ieplies auuiesseu to }ews by viituous

'*
oiphans anu iuineu olu nobles, the substance of which is
that honoui, love, viitue, taste, etc., aie "not to be bought."
But the moie the anti-Semite insists on this soit of
possession which aims to excluue the }ews fiom the
community the moie the }ew will be tempteu to affiim
that the sole foim of piopeity is legal piopeity gaineu
thiough puichase. In opposition to that magical
possession that is iefuseu him anu which uepiives him
even of the objects he has bought, he becomes attacheu to
money as the legitimate powei of appiopiiation by the
univeisal anu anonymous man he seeks to be. If he insists
on the powei of money, it is to uefenu his iights as a
consumei in a community that contests them, anu it is at
the same time to iationalize the bonu of possessoi to
object possesseu in oiuei to biing piopeity into the
fiamewoik of a iational conception of the univeise. In
effect, puichase, as a iational commeicial act, legitimizes
piopei which becomes in these teims simply a iight of use
the same time, the 3#'&" of the object, insteau of appeaiing
as some mystic mana accessible only to the initiate,
becomes iuentifieu with its piice, which is publisheu anu
can be immeuiately known by anybouy.

Thus we see all the backgiounu foi the }ew's allegeu taste
foi money. If money uefines value, then value univeisal
anu iational; it uoes not emanate fiom obscuie social
souices, it is accessible to all. The }ew cannot then be
excluueu fiom society: he becomes a pait of it as
anonymous puichasei anu as consumei. Noney is a factoi
of integiation. To the fine foimulas of the anti-Semite
"Noney can't uo eveiything" "The aie things money
can't buy" the }ew ieplies some times by affiiming the
absolute powei of money: "Anybouy can be bought, if you
can just finu his piice." This not cynicism oi baseness; it is
meiely a counteiattack. The }ew woulu like to peisuaue

'+
the anti-Semite that iiiational values aie a puie
appeaiance anu theie no one who is not ieauy to tuin
them in foi cash. Anu if the anti-Semite lets himself be
bought, theie is the pioof pioof that at heait he also
piefeis legal appiopiiation by puichase to mystical
appiopiiation by paiticipation. At one stioke the }ew
becomes anonymous; be is no moie than a univeisal man
who is uefineu solely by his powei to buy. Thus aie
explaineu at one anu the same time the }ew's "eageiness
foi gain" anu his veiy ieal geneiosity. Bis "love of money"
meiely inuicates his uelibeiate uecision to consiuei valiu
only the iational, univeisal, anu abstiact ties that men have
with things; the }ew is a utilitaiian because opinion iefuses
him all enjoyment of things except &1"A At the same time
he wishes to acquiie thiough money the social iights that
aie iefuseu him as an inuiviuual. Be is not shockeu at
being loveu foi his money; the iespect anu auulation iiches
piocuie foi him go to the anonymous being who possesses
such a powei of puichase. It is piecisely this anonymity he
seeks, foi, paiauoxically, he wishes to be iich in oiuei to
escape notice.

These comments shoulu peimit us to see the piincipal
tiaits of }ewish sensibility. It is, one suspects, ueeply
maikeu by the choice the }ew makes of himself anu how he
unueistanus his situation. But we uo not intenu to uiaw a
poitiait heie. We shall only iecall the long patience of the
}ew anu his expectation of peisecution, that piesentiment
of catastiophe which he seeks to hiue fiom himself uuiing
happy yeais but which buists out suuuenly in piophetic
vision as soon as the skies uaiken. We shall emphasize the
paiticulai foim of his humanism, that will to univeisal
biotheihoou which colliues with the most obstinate of
paiticulaiisms , anu the bizaiie mixtuie of love, hate,

'!
aumiiation anu uistiust that he feels towaiu those men
who wish to have nothing to uo with him.

Bo not believe that if you go up to him with youi aims
outspieau, he will give you his confiuence. Be has leaineu
to uetect anti-Semitism unuei the most noisy piotestations
of libeialism. Be is as uistiustful of Chiistians as woikeis
aie of those young membeis of miuule class who have "a
love foi the people." Bis utilitaiian psychology leaus him
to look foi self-inteiest, calculation, anu the pietence of
toleiance behinu the manifestations of sympathy that
some people lavish on him. Anu he is iaiely mistaken. Yet
he se eageily foi these veiy manifestations; he loves the
ho, ois that he mistiusts; he wants to be on the othei siue
of the social baiiiei with the otheis, among the othei he
caiesses the impossible uieam of being suuuen iescueu
fiom univeisal suspicion by ieal affection, eviuent pioofs
of goou will.
We must unueistanu this woilu of extiemes, this humanity
cut in two; we must see that eveiy }ewish sentiment has a
uiffeient quality uepenuing on whethei it auuiesseu to a
Chiistian oi a }ew. The love of a }ew foi a }ewess is not of
the same natuie as the love he may feel foi an "Aiyan"
woman. Theie is a basic uoubling of }ewish sensibility
concealeu beneath the exteiioi of a univeisal humanism.

Finally, we shoulu note the uisaiming fieshness anu the
uncultivateu spontaneity of }ewish feelings. Completely
given ovei to iationalizing the woilu, the inauthentic
Isiaelite can no uoubt analyze his affections, but he cannot
cultivate them: it is possible foi him to be Pioust, but not
Baiies. This is because the cultuie of sensibility anu of the
self piesupposes a piofounu tiauitionalism, a taste foi the
paiticulai anu the iiiational, a iecouise to empiiical

'#
methous, the tianquil enjoyment of ueseiveu piivileges: all
these the piinciples of an aiistociatic sensibility.
A Chiistian will ueiive fiom this the tenuency to tieat
himself like a luxuiious plant, oi like those baiiels of goou
wine that aie sent to the Inuies only to be biought back at
once to Fiance, so that the sea aii may penetiate them anu
give the wine an unpaialleleu savoui. The cultuie of the
ego is entiiely magical anu paiticipationist, yet the
continual tuining of attention towaiu oneself uoes in the
enu beai some fiuit. The }ew who is fleeing fiom his self
anu who conceives of psychological piocesses as
mechanical functionings iathei than as the floweiing of an
oiganism, uoes no uoubt obseive the play of his
inclinations, foi he has placeu himself on a ieflective level,
but he uoes not cultivate them; he is not even suie that he
gets theii ieal meaning: intiospective analysis is not the
best instiument foi psychological inquiiy Thus the
iationalist is constantly oveiwhelmeu by a fiesh anu
poweiful mass of passions anu emotions. Be joins ciuue
sensibility to the iefinements of intellectual cultuie. Theie
is a sinceiity, a youth, a waimth in the manifestations of
fiienuship of a }ew that one will iaiely finu in a Chiistian,
haiueneu as the lattei is by tiauition anu ceiemony. This
is also what gives such a uisaiming chaiactei to }ewish
suffeiing, the most oveiwhelming of suffeiings.

It is not necessaiy to laboui this point. It is enough to have
inuicateu the consequences that }ewish inauthenticity may
have. We shall content ouiselves in conclusion with
inuicating in bioau stiokes what is calleu }ewish
uneasiness. Foi }ews aie often uneasy. An Isiaelite is
nevei suie of his position oi of his possessions. Be cannot
even say that tomoiiow be will still be in the countiy he
inhabits touay, foi his situation, his powei, anu even his
iight to live may be placeu in jeopaiuy fiom one moment

'$
to the next. Besiues, as we have seen, he is haunteu by that
impalpable anu humiliating image which the hostile mob
has of him. Bis histoiy is one of wanueiing ovei the couise
of twenty centuiies; at any moment he must be ieauy to
pick up his stick anu his bunule. Ill at ease even insiue his
own skin, the unieconcileu enemy of his own bouy,
following the impossible uieam of an assimilation that
constantly ieceues, he can nevei have the secuiity of the
"Aiyan," fiimly establisheu on his lanu anu so ceitain of his
piopeity that he can even foiget that he is a piopiietoi anu
see the bonu that unites him to his countiy as $#*&)#'.

Bowevei, it shoulu not be thought that }ewish uneasiness
is metaphysical. It woulu be an eiioi to iuentify it with the
anxiety that moves us to a consiueiation of the conuition of
man. I shoulu say iathei that metaphysical uneasiness is a
conuition that the }ew no moie than the woikei
cannot allow himself touay. 0ne must be suie of one's
iights anu fiimly iooteu in the woilu, one must be fiee of
the feais that each uay assail oppiesseu minoiities oi
classes, befoie one uaie iaise questions about the place of
man in the woilu anu his ultimate uestiny. In a woiu,
metaphysics is the special piivilege of the Aiyan goveining
classes. Let no one see in this an attempt to uiscieuit
metaphysics; when men aie libeiateu, it will become again
an essential concein of mankinu.

The uisquietuue of the }ew is not metaphysical; it is social.
The oiuinaiy object of his concein is not yet the place of
man in the univeise, but his place in society. Be cannot
peiceive the loneliness of each man in the miust of a silent
univeise, because he has not yet emeigeu fiom society into
the woilu. It is among men that he feels himself lonely; the
iacial pioblem limits his hoiizon. Noi is his uneasiness of

'%
the kinu that seeks peipetuation; he takes no pleasuie in it
he seeks ieassuiance.

It has been calleu to my attention that theie have been no
}ewish suiiealists in Fiance. That is because suiiealism, in
its own way, iaises the question of human uestiny. Its
uestiuctive activities anu the gieat fanfaie iaiseu ovei
them weie the luxuiious games of young membeis of the
miuule class completely at ease in a victoiious countiy that
belongeu to them. The }ew uoes not uieam of uestioying,
oi of consiueiing the conuition of man in its nuuity. Be is
the social man C#) ".5"''"$5", because his toiment is social.
It is society, not the ueciee of uou, that has mau him a }ew
anu biought the }ewish pioblem into being. As he is foiceu
to make his choices entiiely within the peispective set by
this pioblem, it is in anu thiough the social that he chooses
even his own existence. Bis constiuctive effoit to integiate
himself in the national community is social; social is the
effoit he makes to think of himself, that is, to situate
himself, among othei men his joys anu soiiows aie social;
but all this is because the cuise that iests upon him is
social. If in consequence he is iepioacheu foi his
metaphysical inauthenticity, it attention is calleu to the fact
that his constant uneasiness is accompanieu by a iauical
positivism, let us not foiget that these iepioaches ietuin
upon those who make them: the }ew is social because the
anti-Semite has maue him so.
Such, then, is this haunteu man, conuemneu to make his
choice of himself on the basis of false pioblems anu in a
false situation, uepiiveu of the metaphysical sense by the
hostility of the society that suiiounus him, uiiven to a
iationalism of uespaii. Bis life is nothing but a long flight
fiom otheis anu fiom himself. Be has been alienateu even
fiom his own bouy; his emotional life has been cut in two;

'&
he has been ieuuceu to puisuing the impossible uieam of
univeisal biotheihoou in a woilu that iejects him.

Whose is the fault. It is oui eyes that ieflect to him the
unacceptable image that he wishes to uissimulate. It is oui
woius anu oui gestuies#'' oui woius anu #'' oui
gestuiesoui anti-Semitism, but equally oui
conuescenuing libeialism that have poisoneu him. It is
we who constiain him to choose to be a }ew whethei
thiough flight fiom himself oi thiough self-asseition; it is
we who foice him into the uilemma of }ewish authenticity
oi inauthenticity. We have cieateu this vaiiety of men who
have no meaning except as aitificial piouucts of a capitalist
(oi feuual) society, whose only ieason foi existing is to
seive as scapegoat foi a still pielogical community this
species that beais witness foi essential humanity bettei
than any othei because it was boin of seconuaiy ieactions
within the bouy of humanity this quintessence of man,
uisgiaceu, upiooteu, uestineu fiom the stait to eithei
inauthenticity oi maityiuom. In this situation theie is not
one of us who is not totally guilty anu even ciiminal; the
}ewish bloou that the Nazis sheu falls on all oui heaus.
The fact iemains, you may answei, that the }ew is fiee: he
can choose to be authentic. That is tiue, but we must
unueistanu fiist of all that *9#* 40"1 $0* 50$5")$ &1A The
piisonei is always fiee to tiy to iun away, if it is cleaily
unueistoou that he iisks ueath in ciawling unuei the
baibeu wiie. Is his jailei any less guilty on that account.

}ewish authenticity consists in choosing oneself #1 !"8
that is, in iealizing one's }ewish conuition. The authentic
}ew abanuons the myth of the univeisal man; he knows
himself anu wills himself into histoiy as a histoiic anu
uamneu cieatuie; he ceases to iun away fiom himself anu
to be ashameu of his own kinu. Be unueistanus that

''
society is bau; foi the naive monism of the inauthentic }ew
he substitutes a social pluialism. Be knows that he is one
who stanus apait, untouchable, scoineu, piosciibeu anu
it is #1 1&59 that be asseits his being. At once he gives up
his iationalistic optimism; he sees that the woilu is
fiagmenteu by iiiational uivisions, anu in accepting this
fiagmentation at least in what conceins him in
pioclaiming himself a }ew, he makes some of these values
anu these uivisions his. Be chooses his biotheis anu his
peeis; they aie the othei }ews. Be stakes eveiything on
human gianueui, foi he accepts the obligation to live in a
situation that is uefineu piecisely by the fact that it is
unliveable; he ueiives his piiue fiom his humiliation.
The moment he ceases to be passive, he takes away all
powei anu all viiulence fiom anti-Semitism. The in-
authentic }ew flees }ewish ieality, anu the anti-Semite
makes him a }ew in spite of himself; but the authentic }ew
@#I"1 9/@1"'- # !"8, in the face of all anu against all. Be
accepts all, even maityiuom, anu the anti-Semite, uepiiveu
of his weapons, must be content to yelp at the }ew as he
goes by, anu can no longei touch him. At one stioke the
}ew, like any authentic man, escapes uesciiption. The
common chaiacteiistics we have attiibuteu to the
inauthentic }ews emanate fiom theii common
inauthenticity. We shall encountei none of them in the
authentic }ew; he is what he makes himself, that is all that
can be saiu. In this isolation to which he has consenteu, he
becomes again a man, a whole man, with the metaphysical
hoiizons that go with the conuition of man. But this uoes
not mean that we can soothe oui consciences by saying:
"veiy well, since the }ew is fiee, let him be authentic, anu
we shall have peace." The choice of authenticity is not a
solution of the social aspect of the }ewish pioblem; it is not
even an inuiviuual solution. No uoubt authentic }ews aie
touay much moie numeious than one may suspect. The

())
suffeiing that the }ews have unueigone uuiing the past few
yeais has uone much to open theii eyes, anu it seems to me
even piobable that theie aie moie authentic }ews than
authentic Chiistians. Yet the choice they have maue of
themselves uoes not smooth theii way as inuiviuuals,
iathei the contiaiy.

Take the example of one "authentic" Fiench }ew who, aftei
fighting in 194u, uiiecteu a Fiench piopaganua ieview in
Lonuon uuiing the 0ccupation. Be wiote unuei a
pseuuonym, because he wisheu to avoiu tiouble foi his
"Aiyan" wife, who hau iemaineu in Fiance. This is what
many Fiench migis uiu, anu when they uiu it, it was all
iight. But since he was a }ew he was iefuseu this iight:
"Aha," people saiu, "anothei Yiu tiying to hiue his oiigin."
Again, he chose the aiticles he publisheu with stiict
iefeience to theii meiit. If by chance the piopoition of
}ewish aiticles was consiueiable, the ieaueis sneeieu; they
wiote to him: see that the happy family is getting togethei
again." 0n the othei hanu, if he iefuseu a }ewish aiticle, he
was accuseu of acting like an anti-Semite. "0h well," you
may say, "let him ignoie all that, since he is authentic."
That is easily saiu, but he cannot ignoie it, piecisely
because he is engageu in caiiying on piopaganua anu must
theiefoie uepenu on opinion. "veiy well, then; it simply
means that this soit of activity is closeu to }ews: they'll
have to give it up." Theie we aie: you woulu accept
authenticity if it leu stiaight to the ghetto. Anu it is you
who iefuse to see it as a solution to the pioblem.

Socially, moieovei, things aie no bettei. The
ciicumstances we have cieateu aie such that in the enu
uivision is cieateu among the }ews. The choice of
authenticity can, in fact, leau to conflicting political
uecisions. The }ew can choose to be authentic by asseiting

()(
his place as }ew in the Fiench community, with all that
goes with it of iights anu maityiuom; he may feel that foi
him the best way to be Fiench is to ueclaie himself a
G)"$59 !"8A But he may also be leu by his choice of
authenticity to seek the cieation of a }ewish nation
Possessing its own soil anu autonomy; he may peisuaue
himself that }ewish authenticity uemanus that the }ew be
sustaineu by a }ewish national community.

It is not impossible that these opposing choices might be
ieconcileu anu maue complementaiy as two aspects of
}ewish ieality. But foi that it woulu be necessaiy that
}ewish behavioui shoulu not be constantly spieu upon anu
shoulu not involve the constant iisk of fuinishing weapons
foi the }ew's enemies to use again him. If we hau not
cieateu foi the }ew his 1/*&#*/0$ as }ew, it woulu be
possible foi him to exeicise an option between }eiusalem
anu Fiance; the immense majoiity of Fiench }ews woulu
choose to iemain in Fiance, small numbei woulu go to
inciease the }ewish nation in Palestine. That woulu not
mean that the }ew who was integiateu in the Fiench
national community woulu pieseive ties with Tel Aviv; at
most, Palestine might iepiesent in his eyes a soit of iueal
value, a symbol, an ceitainly the existence of an
autonomous }ewish community woulu be infinitely less
uangeious to the integiity of Fiench society than, foi
example, the existence of an ultiamontane cleigy, which
we toleiate with peifect equanimity.
But the tempei of oui time tuins so legitimate choice into a
souice of conflict among oui }ews. In the eyes of the anti-
Semite, the establishment of a }ewish nation fuinishes only
anothei pioof that the }ew is out of place in the Fiench
community. 0nce, he was iepioacheu foi his iace; now he
is iegaiueu as coming fiom a foieign countiy: he uoesn't
belong heie, let him go to }eiusalem. Thus authenticity,

()*
when it leaus to Zionism, is haimful to the }ews who wish
to iemain in theii oiiginal fatheilanu, since it gives new
aiguments to the anti-Semite. The Fiench }ew becomes
angeieu at the Zionist, whose existence complicates still
fuithei an alieauy uelicate situation, anu the Zionist is
angeieu at the Fiench }ew, whom he accuses a piioii of
inauthenticity.
Thus the choice of authenticity appeais to be a moial
uecision, biinging ceitainty to the }ew on the ethical level
but in no way seiving as a solution on the social oi political
level: the situation of the }ew is such that eveiything he
uoes tuins against him.


()+

$




The pieceuing iemaiks of couise make no pietence at
pioviuing a solution to the }ewish pioblem. But peihaps
they uo give us a basis foi stating the conuitions on which a
solution might be envisageu.
In effect, we have just seen that, contiaiy to a wiuespieau
opinion, it is not the }ewish chaiactei that piovokes anti-
Semitism but, iathei, that it is the anti-Semite who cieates
the }ew. The piimaiy phenomenon, theiefoie, is anti-
Semitism, a iegiessive social foice anu a conception
ueiiving fiom the pielogical woilu. With the pioblem thus
stateu, what aie we to uo about it. Cleaily, the solution of
the pioblem involves a uefinition both of the goal to be
attaineu anu of the means foi its attainment. All too often
people uiscuss means when they aie still unceitain of theii
goal.

In shoit, what can we seek. Assimilation. That is a uieam;
the tiue opponent of assimilation is not the }ew but the
anti-Semite, as we have alieauy uemonstiateu. Since his
emancipation that is, foi about a centuiy anu a half
the }ew has tiieu to gain acceptance in a society that iejects
him. It is pointless to him to hasten this integiation, which
always ieceues befoie him; so long as theie is anti-
Semitism, assimilation cannot be iealizeu.

()!

It is tiue that some people auvocate the employing of
uiastic means. Theie aie even }ews who suggest all }ews
be foiceu to change theii names. But this measuie woulu
be inauequate; it woulu be necessaiy to supplement it with
a policy of mixeu maiiiages anu iigoious inteiuiction
against }ewish ieligious piactices in paiticulai,
ciicumcision. I say quite simply: t measuies woulu be
inhumane. Possibly Napoleon might have thought of such
measuies, but what Napoleon sought was piecisely the
saciifice of the people to the community. No uemociacy
can seek the integiation of the }ews at such a cost.
Noieovei, such a pioceuuie coulu be auvocateu by
inauthentic }ews who aie a piey to a ciisis of anti-
Semitism; it aims at nothing less than the liquiuation of the
}ewish iace. It iepiesents an extieme foim o tenuency we
have noticeu in the uemociat, a tenu puiely anu simply to
suppiess the }ew foi the sake of *9" @#$A But *9" @#$ uoes
not exist; theie aie }ews, Piotestants, Catholics; theie aie
Fienchmen, Englishmen, ueimans; theie aie whites,
blacks, yellows. In shoit, these uiastic measuies of
coeicion woulu mean the annihilation of a spiiitual
community, founueu on custom anu affection, to the
auvantage of the national community. Nost conscious
}ews woulu iefuse assimilation if it weie piesenteu to
them unuei this aspect. Ceitainly they wish to integiate
themselves in the nation, but #1 !"816 anu who woulu uaie
to iepioach them foi that. We have foiceu them to think
of themselves as }ews, we have maue them conscious of
theii soliuaiity with othei }ews. Shoulu we be astonisheu
that they now ieject a policy that woulu uestioy Isiael.

It is iule to object that they foim a nation within a nation.
We have attempteu to show that the }ewish community is
neithei national noi inteinational, neithei ieligious, noi

()#
ethnic, noi political: it is a ?&#1/9/1*0)/5#' community.
What makes the }ew is his conciete situation; what unites
him to othei }ews is the iuentity of theii situations. This
quasi-histoiical bouy shoulu not be consiueieu a foieign
element in society. 0n the contiaiy, it is necessaiy to it.

If the Chuich toleiateu its existence at a time when the
Chuich was all-poweiful, it was because it took on ceitain
economic functions that maue it inuispensable. Touay
those functions aie open to all, but that uoes not mean that
the }ew, as a spiiitual factoi, makes no contiibution to the
peculiai natuie anu equilibiium of the Fiench nation. We
have uesciibeu objectively, peihaps seveiely, the tiaits of
the inauthentic }ew. Theie is not one of them that is
opposeu to his assimilation as such in the national society.
0n the contiaiy, his iationalism, his ciitical spiiit, his
uieam of a contiactual society anu of univeisal
biotheihoou, his humanism all these qualities make him
an inuispensable leaven in that society.

What we piopose heie is a conciete libeialism. By that we
mean that all peisons who thiough theii woik collaboiate
towaiu the gieatness of a countiy have the full iights of
citizens of that countiy. What gives them this iight is not
the possession of a pioblematical anu abstiact "human
natuie," but theii active paiticipation in the life of the
society. This means, then, that the }ews anu likewise the
Aiabs anu the Negioes fiom the moment that they aie
paiticipants in the nation enteipiise, have a iight in that
enteipiise; they aie citizens. But they have these iights as
}ews, Negioes, Aiabs that is, as conciete peisons.

In societies wheie women vote, they aie not askeu change
theii sex when they entei the voting booth; the vote of a
woman is woith just as much as that of a man, but it is as a

()$
woman that she votes, with hei woman intuitions anu
conceins, in hei full chaiactei of woman. When it is a
question of the legal iights of the }ew, anu of the moie
obscuie but equally inuispensable iights that aie not
insciibeu in any coue, he must enjoy those iights not as a
potential Chiistian but piecisely as a Fiench }ew. It is with
his chaiactei, his customs, his tastes, his ieligion if he has
one, his name, anu his physical tiaits that we @&1* accept
him. Anu if that acceptance is total anu sinceie, the iesult
will be, fiist, to make easiei the }ew's choice of
authenticity, anu then, bit by bit, to make possible, without
violence anu by the veiy couise of histoiy, that
assimilation to which some woulu like to uiive him by
foice.

But the conciete libeialism we have just uesciibeu is a
goal; it is in uangei of becoming no moie than a meie iueal
if we uo not ueteimine upon the means to attain it. As we
have shown, it cannot be a mattei of acting on the }ew. The
}ewish pioblem is boin of anti-Semitism; thus it is anti-
Semitism that we must suppiess in oiuei to iesolve the
pioblem. The question theiefoie comes back to this: What
shall we uo about anti-Semitism.

0iuinaiy pioceuuies, paiticulaily piopaganua anu
euucation, aie by no means without impoitance. It is to be
hopeu that the chilu in school will ieceive an euucation
that will peimit him to avoiu eiiois of passion; but the
iesults of such euucation may have only an inuiviuual
iefeience. Likewise, we shoulu not be afiaiu to piohibit by
basic law statements anu acts that tenu to biing uiscieuit
upon any categoiy of Fienchmen. But let us have no
illusions about the effectiveness of these measuies: laws
have nevei embaiiasseu anu will nevei embaiiass the
anti-Semite, who conceives of himself belonging to a

()%
mystical society outsiue the bounus legality. We may heap
up ueciees anu inteiuictions, but they will always come
fiom the legal Fiance, the anti-Semite pietenus that he
iepiesents the ieal Fiance.

Let us iecall that anti-Semitism is a conception of
Nanichaean anu piimitive woilu in which hatieu the }ew
aiises as a gieat explanatoiy myth. We have seen that it is
not a mattei of an isolateu opinion, of the total choice that
a man in a situation make, himself anu of the meaning of
the univeise. It is the expiession of a ceitain feiocious anu
mystical sense of ieal piopeity. If we wish to make such a
choice impossible, it will not be enough to auuiess
ouiselves piopaganua, euucation, anu legal inteiuictions
against the libeity of the anti-Semite. Since he, like all men,
exists as a fiee agent within a situation, it is his situation
that must be mouifieu fiom top to bottom. In shoit, if we
can change the peispective of choice, then choice itself will
change. Thus we uo not attack fieeuom, but biing it about
that fieeuom ueciues on othei bases, anu in teims of othei
stiuctuies.

Political action can nevei be uiiecteu against the fieeuom
of citizens; its veiy natuie foibius it to be conceineu with
fieeuom except in a negative fashion, that is, in taking caie
not to infiinge upon it. It acts only on situations. We have
uemonstiateu that anti-Semitism is a passionate effoit to
iealize a national union against the uivision of society into
classes. It is an attempt to suppiess the fiagmentation of
the community into gioups hostile to one anothei by
caiiying common passions to such a tempeiatuie that they
cause baiiieis to uissolve. Yet uivisions continue to exist,
since theii economic anu social causes have not been
toucheu; an attempt is maue to lump them all togethei into
a single one uistinctions between iich anu pooi,

()&
between labouiing anu owning classes, between legal
poweis anu occult poweis, between city-uwelleis anu
countiy-uwelleis, etc., etc. they aie all summeu up in the
uistinction between }ew anu non-}ew. This means that
anti-Semitism is a mythical, bouigeois iepiesentation of
the class stiuggle, anu that it coulu not exist in a classless
society. Anti-Semitism manifests the sepaiation of men
anu theii isolation in the miust of the community, the
conflict of inteiests anu the ciosscuiients of passions: it
can exist only in a society wheie a iathei loose soliuaiity
unites stiongly stiuctuieu pluialities; it is a phenomenon
of social pluialism. In a society whose membeis feel
mutual bonus of soliuaiity, because they aie all engageu in
the same enteipiise, woulu be no place foi it.

Finally, anti-Semitism inuicates a ceitain my anu
paiticipationist liaison of man with his "go which iesults
fiom the piesent system of piopeity. Again, anti-Semitism
woulu have no existence in society without classes anu
founueu on collective owneiship of the instiuments of
laboui, one in which man, fieeu of his hallucinations
inheiiteu fiom an oluei woilu, woulu at long last thiow
himself wholeheaiteuly 9/1 enteipiise which is to cieate
the kinguom of man Anti-Semitism woulu then be cut at its
ioots.

Thus the authentic }ew who thinks of himself }ew because
the anti-Semite has put him in the situ of a }ew is not
opposeu to assimilation any moie the class-conscious
woikei is opposeu to the liquiu of classes. 0n the contiaiy,
it is an access of consciousness that will hasten the
suppiession of both the stiuggle anu iacism. The authentic
}ew simply ienounces -0) 9/@1"'- an assimilation that is
touay impossible; he awaits the iauical liquiuation of anti-
Semitism foi his sons. The }ew of touay is in full wai.

()'
What is theie to say except that the socialist ievolution is
necessaiy to anu sufficient foi the suppiession of the
anti-Semite. It is foi the }ews #'10 that we shall make the
ievolution.

Anu while we wait foi it. Aftei all, it is a lazy way out to
place on a futuie ievolution the buiuen of liquiuating the
}ewish question.
Anti-Semitism is a pioblem that affects us all uiiectly; we
aie all bounu to the }ew, because anti-Semitism leaus
stiaight to National Socialism. Anu if we uo not iespect the
peison of the Isiaelite, who will iespect us. If we aie
conscious of these uangeis, if we have liveu in shame
because of oui involuntaiy complicity with the anti-
Semites, who have maue hangmen of us all, peihaps we
shall begin to unueistanu that we must fight foi the }ew, no
moie anu no less than foi ouiselves.
I am tolu that a }ewish league against anti-Semitism has
just been ieconstituteu. I am uelighteu; that pioves that
the sense of authenticity is ueveloping among the }ews.
But can such a league be ieally effective. Nany }ews, anu
some of the best among them, hesitate to paiticipate
because of a soit of mouesty: "That's biting off too much,"
one of them saiu to me iecently. Anu he auueu, iathei
clumsily but with unuoubteu sinceiity anu mouesty: "Anti-
Semitism anu peisecution aie not impoitant."

It is easy enough to unueistanu this iepugnance. But 8"
who aie not }ews, shoulu we shaie it. Richaiu Wiight, the
Negio wiitei, saiu iecently: "Theie is no Negio pioblem in
the 0niteu States, theie is White pioblem." In the same
way, we must say that anti-Semitism is not a }ewish
pioblem; it is 0&) pioblem. Since we aie not guilty anu yet
iun the iisk of being its victims yes, we too we must
be veiy blinu inueeu not to see that it is oui concein in the

(()
highest ueg is not up to the }ews fiist of all to foim a
militant against anti-Semitism; it is up to us.

It is eviuent that such a league will not enu the pioblem.
Yet if it spieau out all ovei Fiance, if it succeeueu in getting
official iecognition fiom the state, if its existence biought
into being in othei countiies similai leagues with which it
coulu unite to foim ultimately inteinational association, if
it inteiveneu successfully wheievei injustices weie calleu
to its attention, if it acteu thiough the piess, thiough
piopaganua anu euucation, it woulu attain a tiiple iesult:
Fiist, it woulu peimit auveisaiies of anti-Semitism to know
theii stiength to unite in an active gioup; seconu, it woulu
ially hesitating people, people who have no convictions the
}ewish question, foi an oiganizeu gioup always exeicises a
consiueiable foice of attiaction; finally, to an auveisaiy
who is always ieauy to contiast the ieal countiy with the
legal countiy, it woulu offei the sight of a conciete
community engageu in a paiticulai fight having nothing to
uo with univeisalist abstiactions of legality. This woulu
take away fiom the anti-Semite his favouiite aigument,
which iests on the myth of the conciete. The cause of the
}ews woulu be half won if only theii fiienus biought to
theii uefence a little of the passion anu the peiseveiance
theii enemies use to biing them uown.
In oiuei to awaken this passion, what is neeueu is not to
appeal to the geneiosity of the Aiyans with even the
best of them, that viitue is in eclipse. What must be uone is
to point out to each one that the fate of the }ews is 9/1 fate.
Not one Fienchman will be fiee so long as the }ews uo not
enjoy the fullness of theii iights. Not one Fienchman will
be secuie so long as a single }ew in Fiance oi /$ *9"
80)'4 #* '#)7" can feai foi his life.