French-Jewish assimilation reassessed: a review of the recent literature

Judaism, Spring, 1993 by Vicki Caron

By far the boldest and most innovative of these investigations into assimilation in France during the first half of the 19th century is Michael Graetz's Les Juifs en France au |xix.sup.e~siecle: de la revolution francaise a l'Alliance Israelite Universelle (Paris: Seuil, 1989).(11) Graetz's goal is, in reality, two fold. First, he wants to explore the factors responsible for the creation of the AIU in 1860. This organization, devoted to the principles of international Jewish solidarity, was rounded by a group of young activists who proclaimed that French Jews had a special mission to combat anti-Semitism and to fight for Jewish emancipation worldwide. Graetz dismisses as inadequate those interpretations of the AIU that stress only the immediate incidents leading up to its creation, such as the Damascus Affair of 1840, in which the Jewish community of Damascus was accused of having murdered a Capuchin monk for ritual purposes, or the Mortara Case of 1858, in which a six-year-old Jewish boy was kidnapped in Bologna by Vatican agents who claimed that the boy had been baptized. Rather, Graetz insists that a longue duree perspective would illuminate the fact that the AIU's origins were actually embedded in larger patterns of assimilation. His second and somewhat subsidiary goal is to show how the AIU was a necessary precondition for the later emergence of Zionism. To be sure, Graetz acknowledges that the explicit aims of the organization were blatantly assimilatory, and he does not refute the fact that the AIU sought, above all, to spread the ideology of emancipation and regeneration among Jews throughout the world. Nevertheless, Graetz claims, by propagating the ideology of international Jewish solidarity, the AIU operated in unconscious ways to prepare the way for the rise of Jewish nationalism later in the 19th century.

To reveal the underlying forces at work in this progression toward the emergence of Jewish nationalism, Graetz develops a novel and innovative theory regarding the nature of assimilation. This theory is based upon two contentions: first, like Schwarzfuchs and Berkovitz, Graetz rejects the linear model of assimilation that predicts a steady deterioration of Jewish identity in the post-emancipation period. Rather, he argues, assimilation must be understood as a dialectical process -- a dynamic interplay between two sets of forces: the forces encouraging greater integration and assimilation, on the one hand, and the forces of anti-Semitism, on the other. Second, Graetz holds, 19th-century Jews belonged not to a single community, but to two distinct groups. First, there were those whom he labels the "center" -- the mainstream Jews who dominated Jewish institutional life; and, second, there was the "periphery" -- the most extreme assimilationists who were entirely unaffiliated with any Jewish organizations. These Jews, largely young intellectuals, felt profoundly alienated from traditional Judaism and sought out alternative communities, like the Saint-Simonians, that offered the prospect of constructing a new and totally universal society which would transcend both Christianity and Judaism. Indeed, it was precisely these "peripheral" Jews, Graetz argues, who were impacted most by their encounter with anti-Semitism. Due to their extreme assimilationist aspirations, these Jews moved in almost exclusively non-Jewish circles. Yet, despite their successful integration, most of them quickly became aware that anti-Semitism survived to varying degrees even among the most enlightened elements of Gentile society. This clash between the reality of anti-Semitism and their universalistic ideals often resulted in a profound disillusionment that inspired at least some of these youths to return to the Jewish fold. And, coming back to the question of the AIU's origins, Graetz contends that it was precisely these returning young Jewish intellectuals -- imbued with a renewed sense of Jewish solidarity -- who founded the organization. Hence the "periphery" returned to the "center," and, in so doing, revitalized Jewish institutional life and strengthened the bonds of Jewish solidarity.