Violence and the Hebrew language: Jewish nationalism and the university

ABSTRACT

The national language and the nation-state are typically presented as interwoven. Possession of a singular language comprises one of a people’s legitimate grounds for demanding a sovereign state, while the state itself fosters that language through its education system and other means. But the national language and the nation-state do not always work in concert; they can also represent conflicting meanings and ideologies of national life. Zionism is a revealing case in this context; the Hebrew language, at least as understood among cultural Zionists, was associated with ideas that are humanistic, moral, universalistic and anti-violence – ideas that conflicted with the values and practices typically accompanying the formation and furtherance of a nation-state. This divergence of paths was reflected at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in its pre-state period and has yielded a lasting effect on the role that universities play in Israeli political life and in civic education.

KEYWORDS:

• Nationalism
• Hebrew language
• violence
• university
• Zionism

Acknowledgements

I presented earlier versions of this paper at the Oxford Center for Jewish and Hebrew Studies, the Center for Jewish Studies at the University of Chicago (as the Goldberg Lecture), and the conference “Knowledge in this Era” at Tel Aviv University. I would like to thank the participants and audiences at these forums for their enlightening comments. I would also like to thank The Israel Science Foundation (ISF). Many thanks also to Roni Zadok, Gili Bartora, Noa keinan and Ma’ayan Roichman for their research in various archives, without which this article could not have been written, as well as for their many comments and suggestions. Finally, I would like to thank Lin Chalozin Dovrat, for her generous support and for invaluable conversations about this project.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor

Eyal Chowers is a senior lecturer in the Political Science department of Tel Aviv University. He is the author of The Political Philosophy of Zionism: Trading Jewish Words for a Hebraic Land (Cambridge UP, 2012). Political Science Department, Faculty of Social Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, Tel Aviv, Israel 69978. Email: [email protected]

Notes

1. See also Humboldt (1974).

2. I am indebted here to Woolard (1992). See also Silverstein (1979) and Friedrich (1989).

3. My discussion about the relationship between the national language and the nation-state could be seen as part of a larger discussion about the relationship between cultural nationalism and the state. According to Gans, for example, cultural nationalism suggests that “members of groups sharing a common history and societal culture have a fundamental, morally significant interest in adhering to their culture and sustaining it across generations” (2003, 7). The state, in this case, merely comprises a potential means for preserving the culture, not an end in itself and not even a necessary means. Notably, Gans contrasts cultural nationalism with statist nationalism. My concern here, however, is not to explore cultural nationalism in all its dimensions, but rather to focus on the role and fate of the national language when it confronts the institution of the nation-state.

4. See Meron (2005). On Hebrew, Zionism and the State of Israel, see also Spolsky and Shohamy (1999) and Kuzar (2001).

5. See also Chowers (2012, Ch. 3) and Ohana (2012, Ch. 2).

6. On the development and evolution of Hebrew in Zionism, see Harshav (1993), Safran (2005) and Or (2016).

7. It should be noted that Ben-Gurion promoted, at certain periods at least, ideals that echoed those of the cultural Zionists. Similarly to Buber, for example, Ben-Gurion embraced a semi-cyclical notion of historical time, and saw the Bible as an inspiration for the young state and as its shared (civic) canon (Shapira 1997). He also suggested in the late 1950s that the Jewish people, as a political community in Palestine, should become an exemplary people in respect to other nations, promoting lofty ideals such as “am segula” and “or lagoyim” while ignoring the metaphysical and theological ramifications of these two concepts. Yet Ben-Gurion’s political thought was in essence greatly at odds with that of the cultural Zionists: not only did he regard the Hebrew language mainly in terms of its political value as a cementing force, but he also championed the idea of a Jewish nation-state, embraced collective use of violence as necessary and inevitable, prioritized the transformation of material reality and actual nation-building projects over the cultivation of other spheres of human activity, and more. In fact, for him even the Hebrew University was evaluated mainly in terms of its contribution to the augmentation of power (especially economic and technological) of the Jewish people in Palestine, and its contribution to state-building (Ben-Gurion 1944).

8. A thorough discussion of the relationship between universities and language lies beyond the scope of this article. Notably, however, the university is inclined to guard and celebrate the standing and richness of language, since (unlike corporations, armies, state bureaucracies and other agencies) scholarship cannot function merely via “shallow” communication. University scholarship and instruction, especially in the humanities and social sciences, are based on linguistic activities and practices: reading, commenting, writing and discussion. Since the establishment of universities in medieval times, rhetoric, dialectics, grammar, philology and related fields have played prominent roles in university life. At the university, indeed, language is not simply a means to describe or express certain truths; in part, it also constitutes these truths, which are explored and articulated through language. The scholar must possess the capacity to build an argument anchored in what has already been said and studied, to enter into dialogue with contemporaries, as well as with canonical texts. A faculty member is expected to be versed in a certain professional vocabulary and to employ it in nuanced ways so as to participate in an ongoing conversation. This conversation, rather than being limited to territorial borders and national identities, is inclined to transcend them. Historically, the use of Latin across Europe supported this transnational character of the pursuit of knowledge and understanding, as is the case with English today. On these matters see Humboldt (1972) and Oakeshott (1989).

9. Since the Hebrew University’s first days, classes there were conducted and lectures delivered in Hebrew, although almost everyone struggled with the ancient language and some instructors hardly knew it at all (they had to write their lectures in German or Latin and then present them in Hebrew). Some professors, especially Tur Sinai and Yosef Klausner, were also deeply involved in advising the Committee of the Hebrew Language, an organization that in the pre-state period attempted to expand the vocabulary of Hebrew and to solve grammatical issues. On the latter point, see Efrati (2005).

10. The faculty at the Hebrew University had to invent professional terms in all fields, from philosophy and literature to chemistry and medicine; its members also translated works from the Western canon into Hebrew, often at the highest academic level. In fact, the university resumed the work conducted mostly in medieval times, when Jews in Spain, Italy, and elsewhere translated scientific texts in fields such as medicine, mathematics and biology, from Arabic and Latin into Hebrew. On this point, see the main pioneer of these translations at the Hebrew University, Roth (1946) and Freudenthal (2011).

11. See also Zipperstein (1993).

12. On the fragmentation of knowledge at the modern university, see MacIntryre (2011).

13. The young Gershom Scholem expressed similar ideas. In his early diaries, he wrote that “Hebrew is the Torah, as you can say that only he who learns Hebrew for the sake of the Torah is a pupil, a student of the Teaching.” The meaning of this Hebrew-based “Teaching” for Zionism, he explains earlier in the diary, is

to get over three things: the whole business of the agricultural settlements, the racial ideology, and arguments based on blood and experience. . . He who goes there [Palestine] for the sake of the Teaching has perhaps an entirely different profession. (Scholem 2007, 170, 138)

14. Scholem, on the other hand, was well aware of Hebrew’s apocalyptic potential. See his well-known letter: “Confession on the Subject of our Language” (Scholem [1926] 2002, 226–227). See also Shahar (2008).

15. While Buber was among the first to suggest a Hebrew-speaking university, he arrived in Jerusalem only in 1938; and although he joined the Hebrew University faculty, he remained rather unattached to it and considered himself an outsider to academic life. See his letter to Hugo Bergmann.

16. Buber underscores the role of speech in a dialogue between two people and even the speech of the teacher or prophet but not the role of speech in a political setting and deliberation among citizens. In this context, see Michael Walzer’s remark that in Judaism the prophets cast a long shadow, so much so that there is hardly any weight given to “worldly deliberations” among members of the same polity (2000, 205).

17. Buber was not necessarily naive, and recognized that violent means are sometimes inevitable, for example, in response to the Nazis. However, he looked for ways to minimalize violence and make it redundant in human relations, without believing that it could be avoided altogether (Luz 2003, 167–176). For a more critical view of Buber's politics, see Hazony (2001, 181–194).

18. “I and thou” writes Buber,

take their stand not merely in relation, but also in the solid give and take of talk . . . The moments of the relations are bound together by means of the element of the speech in which they are immersed. (2004, 79)

See also Avnon (1998).

19. On this point, see Mendes-Flohr (2002).

20. Notably, Buber was rather frustrated with his own Hebrew, finding it awkward. He required assistance in preparing his lectures and editing his writings in that language. See his letter to Ludwig Strauss (Buber [1937] 1991).

21. On this point, see also: (Ratzabi 2002, 49–50).

22. For a discussion of this group, see Ratzabi (2002, 6–45). This group had a few notable principles: that relations between Jews and Arabs should be based on dialogue, not on imposition and force; that each nation has equal collective rights; that rather than seeking two nation-states, Jews and Arabs should embrace a bi-national state and public institutions; that the main goal of Zionism should not be a demographic majority in Palestine; and that violence between the two nations should be avoided to the greatest extent possible. Buber supported their activities from Germany, where he was living at the time.

Additional information

Funding

This research has been funded by the generous support of The Israel Science Foundation (ISF)[grant number 659/13].