The Eastern European Problem of Hasidic Studies

W. Tworek
{"title":"The Eastern European Problem of Hasidic Studies","authors":"W. Tworek","doi":"10.1353/jqr.2022.0016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"“ K A R L M A R X WA S a German phi los o pher,” writes Leszek Kołakowski in the introduction to his history of Marxist thought. “This does not sound a particularly enlightening statement, yet it is not so commonplace as it may at first appear.”1 Mimicking the Polish phi los o pher, I will begin by saying that Hasidism (lehavdil!) was an Eastern Eu ro pean phenomenon. And while this statement sounds trivial, and recurs in many publications about Hasidism, it has had limited impact on the shape of Hasidic studies. There is little of Eastern Eu rope in Hasidic studies, and, conversely (and to some extent resulting from this), there is very little Hasidism in the Jewish studies programs taught in Eastern Eu rope. This short essay is not— and cannot be— a thorough critique of the field of Hasidic studies. Still, my general impression is that there are three dominant modes in which Hasidic scholars engage with Eastern Eu rope. The first one is inadvertent erasure, in which this geography is relegated to the margins by, to paraphrase Daniel Dennett, freefloating rationales of Hasidic theology. The second one uses Eastern Eu rope as a symbolic reservoir of Hasidic culture divorced from its complex historical context, a frum variation of the Yiddishland nostalgia. The third one treats Eastern Eu ro pean spaces as actualized by Hasidic per for mance. My intention is not to discredit the prolific production of Hasidism scholarship in the phenomenology of religion, cultural history, history of ideas, anthropology, literary studies, and so on. Many excellent and illuminating studies emerge from these perspectives, but I would say that their relation to Eastern Europe is tangential at best. For the rec ord, my own work subscribes heavi ly to the first and third models.","PeriodicalId":22606,"journal":{"name":"The Jewish Quarterly Review","volume":"73 1","pages":"256 - 259"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Jewish Quarterly Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/jqr.2022.0016","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

“ K A R L M A R X WA S a German phi los o pher,” writes Leszek Kołakowski in the introduction to his history of Marxist thought. “This does not sound a particularly enlightening statement, yet it is not so commonplace as it may at first appear.”1 Mimicking the Polish phi los o pher, I will begin by saying that Hasidism (lehavdil!) was an Eastern Eu ro pean phenomenon. And while this statement sounds trivial, and recurs in many publications about Hasidism, it has had limited impact on the shape of Hasidic studies. There is little of Eastern Eu rope in Hasidic studies, and, conversely (and to some extent resulting from this), there is very little Hasidism in the Jewish studies programs taught in Eastern Eu rope. This short essay is not— and cannot be— a thorough critique of the field of Hasidic studies. Still, my general impression is that there are three dominant modes in which Hasidic scholars engage with Eastern Eu rope. The first one is inadvertent erasure, in which this geography is relegated to the margins by, to paraphrase Daniel Dennett, freefloating rationales of Hasidic theology. The second one uses Eastern Eu rope as a symbolic reservoir of Hasidic culture divorced from its complex historical context, a frum variation of the Yiddishland nostalgia. The third one treats Eastern Eu ro pean spaces as actualized by Hasidic per for mance. My intention is not to discredit the prolific production of Hasidism scholarship in the phenomenology of religion, cultural history, history of ideas, anthropology, literary studies, and so on. Many excellent and illuminating studies emerge from these perspectives, but I would say that their relation to Eastern Europe is tangential at best. For the rec ord, my own work subscribes heavi ly to the first and third models.
哈西德派研究的东欧问题
“K·A·R·L·M·A·R·X·w是一位德国哲学家,”莱塞克Kołakowski在他的马克思主义思想史导言中写道。这听起来并不是一个特别有启发性的说法,但它并不像乍看起来那么普通。“我模仿波兰的phi lophher,首先要说的是哈西德主义(lehavdil!)是东欧的一种欧洲现象。虽然这种说法听起来微不足道,并且在许多关于哈西德派的出版物中反复出现,但它对哈西德派研究的影响有限。在哈西德派的研究中,很少有东欧派的研究,相反地(在某种程度上也是由此导致的),在东欧教的犹太研究课程中,很少有哈西德派的研究。这篇短文不是——也不可能是——对哈西德派研究领域的彻底批判。尽管如此,我的总体印象是哈西德派学者与东欧绳子打交道有三种主要模式。第一种是无意的抹去,用丹尼尔·丹尼特的话来说,这种地理被哈西德派神学自由浮动的理论所边缘化。第二个项目使用东欧绳子作为哈西德派文化的象征性储存库,脱离了其复杂的历史背景,是一种意第绪语怀旧的变体。第三种是把东欧的和平空间看作是由哈西德派的政治行为实现的。我的目的并不是诋毁哈西德派在宗教现象学、文化史、思想史、人类学、文学研究等领域的大量学术成果。从这些角度产生了许多优秀的、有启发性的研究,但我想说的是,它们与东欧的关系充其量是切边的。值得一提的是,我自己的作品在很大程度上遵循了第一种和第三种模式。
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