Antisemitism  

One can argue that both historically and today it is precisely the combination of old and new elements that is most characteristic of antisemitism.

The term ‘antisemitism’ was formulated in the 1870s by the German Wilhelm Marr (Marr, 1879) [2] . At that time, the word was used to describe a political-ideological movement that worked against what was perceived as a negative societal development towards ‘Jewish dominance.’ The movement was a reaction to the emancipation of the Jews, which granted them civil rights, and to the social ascent of Jews in contemporary society.

Both the term itself and the definition of antisemitism is debated. This has many reasons and is partly historically conditioned. After World War II, open, negative attitudes towards Jews were discredited in Europe. While in interwar Europe there were individuals who openly identified as ‘antisemites,’ this was only found among fringe communities after the Holocaust. A consequence of this is that debates about antisemitism often include a discussion about the definition of the term. Antisemitism, as it manifests in various situations, whether in school, in the schoolyard, or elsewhere, is also a highly relational phenomenon. That is, it is shaped and interpreted based on the specific situation and the relationship between those involved.

Historical traces

The fundamental premise of antisemitic constructions is that Jews have certain inherent (negative) qualities. Antisemitic attitudes build on a long history of stereotypes about Jews that all have this premise in common. These culturally transmitted ideas adapt to various historical and social situations while still drawing on a set of basic perceptions portraying Jews as disloyal, foreign, and powerful.

“Basic motives in antisemitic thinking claim Jews are disloyal, foreign, and powerful.”

All group constructions involve a boundary between ‘us’ and ‘them’ in some form. By forming an image of ‘the others,’ an image of ‘us’ is simultaneously created, expressing the values and issues that are highly regarded. The antisemitic construction of the ‘Jew’ in similar ways constitute an antithesis. The concrete elements that have shaped anti-Jewish stereotypes have arisen from specific needs or difficulties or currents of thought in the contemporary context. To understand driving forces in the history of antisemitism, one must look at the function of the image of the ‘Jew’ in various contexts.

Historical research into the history of antisemitism have shown how the idea of the ‘Jew’ in the Middle Ages was characterized by the opposition between Christianity and Judaism. In the Enlightenment, when belief in rationality was central, Judaism could be equated with religion in general and seen as irrational and contrary to the spirit of the times. After the Russian Revolution, the image of the Jews included potential revolutionaries and a serious threat through the idea of the ‘Judeo-Bolshevik’ and a conspiratorial alliance between Jews and communists. Thus, the representations of Jews have changed throughout history in line with societal developments.

“The theological opposition between Judaism and Christianity can historically be designated as the most important cultural source of anti-Jewish ideas in Europe.”

The theological opposition that exists between Judaism and Christianity, which is fundamentally linked to the question of whether Jesus was the Messiah, can historically be designated as one of the most important cultural sources of anti-Jewish ideas in Europe. Scholars debate whether or to which extent discrimination of Jews in antiquity should be defined as expressions of anti-Jewish attitudes. However, during the Crusades, clear enemy images of both Jews and Muslims emerged from the early 12th century. The history of anti-Jewish prejudice in Europe can based on this be said to be about a thousand years old. It is a characteristic of group-focused prejudices like antisemitism that the prehistory of ideas influences later experience and interpretation of events. At the same time, there can be significant differences in how similar incidents are experienced, how they are interpreted by the surroundings, and how they were intended.

To understand how experiences of group-focused prejudices affect the recipient, it may be necessary to illuminate how the events often have a broader context than what is immediately apparent in the situation. When dealing with antisemitism, knowledge of the historical background to the ideas is an important starting point.

“Knowledge of the historical context can be an important starting point for dealing with antisemitism in practice.”

Surveys conducted by the Norwegian Center for Holocaust and Minority Studies have documented experiences of antisemitism among Norwegian Jews [3](Døving & Moe 2014; Hoffmann & Moe, 2017; Moe, 2022). The studies show how the long history of ideas is significant for the participants’ interpretation of negative experiences. Among the experiences they had with traditional stereotypes about Jews, incidents implying the idea of the ‘money Jew’ were among the most common.

One story came from a 14-year-old boy from Oslo. He had experienced several situations at school where bullying from classmates referred to these stereotypes. The harassment involved students first throwing coins at him and then asking why he, being Jewish, didn’t pick them up. It was students he referred to as ‘the popular ones’ who were behind it, and through these episodes, they were perceived as even ‘cooler,’ according to the boy. The incidents gathered a large audience (‘a hundred’), but most often five to ten people. It was always boys who harassed him, but ‘girls laughing,’ as he said. For the boy, this was very humiliating.

“Some of the most central ideas about the ‘Jew’ draw material from the story of Judas. His betrayal of Christ is a core motif in the idea of Jewish disloyalty and simultaneously of Jewish greed for money.”

In the extension of the Christian image of Judas, who allowed himself to be bought for money, lies the idea of Jews’ general greed for money.

This image also solidified through the conflict between church and monarchy in Europe. In the early Middle Ages, Jews were represented in all professions, but they were particularly visible in trade. In many places, Jews were also prohibited from owning land, and trade represented a possible livelihood. During the 11th century, conditions changed, and Jews faced competition from other groups seeking to make a living from trade. At the same time, money lending was a sought-after business, and Jews were outside the Church’s regulations that hindered Christians from lending at interest.

Contrary to the anti-Jewish portrayals, Jews were never alone in engaging in money lending in Europe except in England during a period in the 12th century, and only a small minority among Jews engaged in this business (see, e.g., Eriksen, Harket & Lorenz, 2009, 38). In the East, Jews were traditionally poor. However, the image of the Jew as a moneylender stuck in the European consciousness. An example of how persistent this idea is in European culture can be found in Shakespeare’s character Shylock, the old Jewish moneylender in the play ‘The Merchant of Venice.’ When Shakespeare wrote this play, the Jews had been banished from England for over 300 years (from the year 1290, the play was written in 1596/97.) In line with the development of modern Europe, the antisemitic stereotypes also changed. Hence did the idea of the ‘money Jew’ also contain the international finance power, the capitalist, and the stock market speculator.

“When negative qualities are linked to race ideas and biology, they also become something that sticks to individuals regardless of their actions.”

A central element of racist, ‘modern’ antisemitism was precisely that the ideas incorporated racial-biological concepts. Although the group construction of Jews also had essentializing features earlier—the assumption that the ‘Jewish’ had certain characteristics—this now became a dominant and fateful feature. When negative qualities are linked to race ideas and biology, they also become something that sticks to individuals regardless of their actions. The conception of the ‘Jewish’ in modern antisemitism thus meant that conversion was no longer a means to escape anti-Jewish measures. Moreover, the concept of the ‘Jewish’ in Nazism and modern antisemitism is characterized by being an abstract entity encompassing everything Nazism opposed, whether it be political adversaries, aspects of societal development, or even modernity itself.

The self-fulfilling prophecy of group construction

In the classroom, discussions can arise about the extent to which ideas like this have a basis in reality. In most cases, it is possible to find ‘evidence’ for the ideas in the form of examples from reality. The fallacy (or group construction) consists of drawing conclusions from such isolated cases to characteristics of all Jews. Stereotypical ideas also tend to be self-confirming precisely by promoting a certain understanding of reality and that examples contradicting the mentioned traits are given little weight (see, e.g., Wistrich 1999).

“Stereotypical thinking provides a certain set of ‘glasses’—one sees what one wants to see.”

Thus, stereotypical thinking can be said to provide a certain set of ‘glasses’—one sees what one wants to see. Historically, hostile group ideas have also influenced a concrete social situation by limiting the freedom of minorities based on majority ideas. An example from the history of antisemitism is the historical restrictions against Jews owning land. During certain periods, this favored trade as a livelihood for Jews. Thus, the idea of Jews being concerned with money is ‘confirmed’. The idea of the ‘money Jew’ is also often ‘explained’ through references to well-known, rich individuals. This stereotypical way of thinking causes certain aspects of reality to take precedence, excluding elements that contradict it, such as the millions of poor Jews who historically have lived in eastern areas of Europe. A consequence of such representation is that the victim may appear responsible for the negative attitudes. In the most recent survey conducted by the Norwegian Center for Holocaust and Minority Studies, 12 per cent supported the claim that ‘Jews themselves are largely to blame for being persecuted’.

Antisemitism in the Norwegian School

In addition to the long history of various notions influencing the interpretation of negative experiences, the relationship between those involved is crucial for dealing with antisemitism in schools.

“The relationship between those involved is crucial for dealing with antisemitism in schools.”

In one of the interview studies conducted in Norway, a boy shared that during warm-up at football practice, the coach had shouted, ‘The last one is a Jew!’ (Moe, 2014, 83). The boy mentioned that the incident had made a particularly strong impression on him because he had looked up to the coach as an important adult figure. ‘I lost some motivation – and respect – for the coach,’ the informant said. Similar descriptions were provided by other informants. The stories underscore how the attitudes of trusted individuals are of particular significance.

At the same time, some informants were reluctant to label incidents as manifestations of antisemitism. Partly, this applied to situations that, undoubtedly to an outsider, could be interpreted as expressions of negative attitudes towards Jews. The informants’ narratives were marked by the stigma attached to being subjected to harassment, and perhaps this was one reason for their reluctance. There were also several of those interviewed who said they had kept their experiences hidden from their parents to spare them.

In addition to knowledge of the ideological framework and historical background of these notions, awareness of the silence that often follows such experiences is important for preparedness against – and handling of – antisemitism. It is also essential to be aware that there are very few Jews in Norwegian schools. In many classrooms, there are no Jews, but antisemitic attitudes can still be present. Antisemitism can exist without Jews. In school, it is important to prevent such attitudes regardless, not least because students also participate and will participate in society as a whole.