Producing Radical Presence: Yiddish Literature in Twenty-first Century Israel

Hannah Pollin-Galay
{"title":"Producing Radical Presence: Yiddish Literature in Twenty-first Century Israel","authors":"Hannah Pollin-Galay","doi":"10.1515/9783110619003-026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Should literature be taught as space of imagination or as a tool for building social conscience? This is a question heard and asked often these days. Given the current challenges facing the humanities – declining enrollment, profit-based measures of educational success, technological incursions on learning practices, and public leaders who proudly assert that they do not read – many scholars seek new ways to articulate the value of their profession, to defend literature in the public sphere. Martha Nussbaum has famously argued that the humanities are crucial for creating and maintaining a “people-sensitive democracy” (Nussbaum 2010, 25). Not all are pleased with this line of thinking. Nussbaum’s detractors complain that, in arguing for the ultimate “use” of the humanities, she echoes the instrumentalism of those who want to destroy these same fields. Ben Saunders puts it this way: “We value money instrumentally, because it allows us to consume other things that we value intrinsically. Art and culture, I suggest, are such goods: worth spending money on because we value them in themselves, rather than regarding them as investments expected to produce some further benefit, either economic or political” (Saunders 2013, 250). I would like to move away from the dichotomy between instrumental outcomes (strengthening democracy) versus intrinsic value (aesthetic or experiential pleasure) by thinking instead about the capacity of literature to produce presence – a notion that has been richly developed by the critic Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht. Gumbrecht defines presence as “a spatial relationship to the world and its objects. Something that is ‘present’ is supposed to be tangible for human hands, which implies that, conversely, it can have an immediate impact on human bodies.” (Gumbrecht 2004, xiii). Perhaps counterintuitively, since literature is often considered an art of words rather than objects, Gumbrecht argues that certain texts have the ability to create presence, both by making readers more alive to the sensations of the moment that they are currently living, more attentive to the other human faces before them and also by re-presenting moments of the past, calling them up into the physical space of here and now (Gumbrecht 2003). I believe that Yiddish literature has an especially valuable presence to produce today, particularly when taught in contemporary Israel. I first arrived at this proposition in the spring of 2018, my first teaching at Tel Aviv University. As part of an introductory course on Yiddish literature, I taught the classic fiction, Di","PeriodicalId":265491,"journal":{"name":"Disseminating Jewish Literatures","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Disseminating Jewish Literatures","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110619003-026","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Should literature be taught as space of imagination or as a tool for building social conscience? This is a question heard and asked often these days. Given the current challenges facing the humanities – declining enrollment, profit-based measures of educational success, technological incursions on learning practices, and public leaders who proudly assert that they do not read – many scholars seek new ways to articulate the value of their profession, to defend literature in the public sphere. Martha Nussbaum has famously argued that the humanities are crucial for creating and maintaining a “people-sensitive democracy” (Nussbaum 2010, 25). Not all are pleased with this line of thinking. Nussbaum’s detractors complain that, in arguing for the ultimate “use” of the humanities, she echoes the instrumentalism of those who want to destroy these same fields. Ben Saunders puts it this way: “We value money instrumentally, because it allows us to consume other things that we value intrinsically. Art and culture, I suggest, are such goods: worth spending money on because we value them in themselves, rather than regarding them as investments expected to produce some further benefit, either economic or political” (Saunders 2013, 250). I would like to move away from the dichotomy between instrumental outcomes (strengthening democracy) versus intrinsic value (aesthetic or experiential pleasure) by thinking instead about the capacity of literature to produce presence – a notion that has been richly developed by the critic Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht. Gumbrecht defines presence as “a spatial relationship to the world and its objects. Something that is ‘present’ is supposed to be tangible for human hands, which implies that, conversely, it can have an immediate impact on human bodies.” (Gumbrecht 2004, xiii). Perhaps counterintuitively, since literature is often considered an art of words rather than objects, Gumbrecht argues that certain texts have the ability to create presence, both by making readers more alive to the sensations of the moment that they are currently living, more attentive to the other human faces before them and also by re-presenting moments of the past, calling them up into the physical space of here and now (Gumbrecht 2003). I believe that Yiddish literature has an especially valuable presence to produce today, particularly when taught in contemporary Israel. I first arrived at this proposition in the spring of 2018, my first teaching at Tel Aviv University. As part of an introductory course on Yiddish literature, I taught the classic fiction, Di
产生激进的存在:二十一世纪以色列的意第绪文学
文学应该作为想象空间还是作为建立社会良知的工具来教授?这是一个最近经常听到和被问到的问题。考虑到人文学科目前面临的挑战——入学人数下降、以利润为基础的教育成功衡量标准、技术对学习实践的入侵、以及自豪地宣称自己不阅读的公共领导人——许多学者寻求新的途径来阐明他们职业的价值,在公共领域捍卫文学。玛莎·努斯鲍姆(Martha Nussbaum)提出了一个著名的观点,即人文学科对于创造和维持“以人为本的民主”至关重要(Nussbaum 2010, 25)。并非所有人都对这种思路感到满意。努斯鲍姆的批评者抱怨说,在主张人文学科的最终“用途”时,她呼应了那些想要摧毁这些领域的人的工具主义。本·桑德斯(Ben Saunders)是这样说的:“我们从工具上重视金钱,因为它允许我们消费其他我们内在重视的东西。我认为,艺术和文化就是这样的商品:值得花钱,因为我们看重它们本身,而不是将它们视为有望产生一些进一步利益的投资,无论是经济还是政治”(Saunders 2013, 250)。我想摆脱工具性结果(加强民主)与内在价值(审美或经验愉悦)之间的二分法,转而思考文学产生存在的能力——这是评论家汉斯·乌尔里希·冈布雷希特(Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht)丰富发展的一个概念。Gumbrecht将存在定义为“与世界及其对象的空间关系”。“现在”的东西对于人的手来说应该是有形的,这意味着,反过来,它可以对人体产生直接的影响。(Gumbrecht 2004, xiii)也许与直觉相反,因为文学通常被认为是一种文字艺术而不是对象艺术,Gumbrecht认为某些文本具有创造存在的能力,既可以使读者对他们当前生活的那一刻更加活跃,更关注他们面前的其他人的面孔,也可以通过再现过去的时刻,将他们召唤到此时此地的物理空间(Gumbrecht 2003)。我相信意第绪语文学在今天有着特别有价值的存在,尤其是在当代以色列的教学中。我第一次提出这个观点是在2018年春天,那是我在特拉维夫大学的第一次教学。作为意第绪文学入门课程的一部分,我教授了经典小说《Di》
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信