Report of the Conference

Mediating Israeli History and East European History

–Zionism and Jewish Migration from Russia and Poland–

January 11-12, 2015

Tokyo Station College, Saitama University

Rapporteur:  Yuu Nishimura

 

This conference, “Mediating Israeli History and East European History: Zionism and Jewish Migration from Russia and Poland,” was organized by Professor Taro Tsurumi at Saitama University. The participants included six scholars from Israel, four from the United States, and three from Japan. Among the audience were researchers in Japan whose research topics were in such different fields as Palestinian/Israeli studies and Jewish studies as well as Russian and East European studies. All conference sessions were open to the public.

 

As an introduction, Tsurumi explained the aim and scope of the conference, which was summarized in three points:

The first point is to bridge the gap between Israeli history and East European history, as the title shows. Israeli issues tend to be discussed within a framework of the Middle East, or of Europe –usually associated with Western Europe. In this framework, the historical fact that the most of the leading Zionists were from East Europe is often overlooked. One of this conference’s main points is to analyze the influence of political culture in East Europe toward Zionism, Jewish identity, and Israeli political culture.

The second aim is to de-essentialize the understanding of Jewish identity. Although Zionism was a movement of Jewish people, the term “Jewish” itself has not always held a fixed essential entity. Jewish identity or Jewishness has been formed through ages, influenced by the locality of East Europe as well as by the social and political changes that occurred there. Considering this, it is both reasonable and necessary to reevaluate Jewish identity not as an essential entity but as a contextual one.

The third and final point is to de-politicize Israeli history. The history of Israel is often seen with some political bias. This is understandable, considering the ongoing political conflict between Israel and Palestine, but not ideal. Tsurumi showed hopes that the locality of this conference, neither in Israel nor in the U.S. but in Tokyo, leant some advantage to this point.

 

The conference lasted two days and the papers were given in five sessions: “Russia and Transformation of Jewishness,” “Empire and East/West,” “Law, Rights, Citizenship,” “Poland, Democracy, and Demography,” and “Socialism and Transnational Kibbutz.” The topics shown in each paper were far-reaching, including such issues as the 1880s’ formative Zionism in Russia and the contemporary Israeli ideas of law. Here I summarize the reports, not in the order of the sessions, but by classifying them by some central issues.

One of the main arguments shown in the papers was that the locality and political culture of East Europe impressed on Jewish identity, Zionism, and Israeli political culture in diverse ways.

Olga Litvak (Clerk University, U.S.) focused on Hovevei Zion in Russia in the early 1880s. She pointed out that for the members of Hovevei Zion, who were Russified Jewish male intellectuals, Zionism functioned as a new community of ethics that replaced the old ones in synagogues or in beth midrash. She argued that Zionism was not only a political movement but also a revolution of ethics and consciousness, which was, at the same time, their response to modernity.

Taro Tsurumi (Saitama University, Japan) analyzed the ideology of the Zionist intellectuals who battled for the White Army during the Russian Civil War. Analyzing the writings of Russian-Jewish intellectual émigrés, such as Daniel Pasmanik, Tsurumi pointed out that their Jewish identity was formed on the basis of their high evaluation of the multi-ethnic Russian Empire, among which Jews as a group also had played an indispensable role. He explained that Jewish identity at that time was contextually understood, and the 1920s was a turning point at which understanding of Jewish identity changed from a contextual one into an essential one.

In terms of the essential understanding of Jewish identity, one of its most influential advocates might have been Vladimir Jabotinsky, whom Rafi Zirkin-Sadan (Hebrew University, Israel) discussed. Analyzing the two opposite symbols “West” and “East” in Jabotinsky’s historical novel Samson, Zirkin-Sadan showed that Jabotinsky’s motif of Jewish national renaissance was composed exclusively of elements that have usually been attributed to West Europe.

The contrasting images of “West” and “East” were important also for Israel Zangwil, the leading figure of the Jewish Territorial Organization (ITO). Arieh Saposnik (Ben-Gurion University, Israel) presented Zangwil’s idea of Zionism, pointing to his frame of reference. Characteristic ideas of Zangwil’s Zionism, such as the power struggle among nations and the conquest of Oriental barbarism through modernization, had been under strong influence of imperialism. At the same time, Saposnik pointed out, Zangwil had pondered about the contribution of Jews as a mediator between Western Imperialism and the Orient, where the ancient Jews had come from.

While the above-mentioned reports shed light on the Jewish identity formed within the context of the Empires, Haruka Miyazaki (Hokkaido University of Education, Japan) analyzed identity instead in the context of Polish nationalism. She analyzed Apolinary Hartglas’s idea of nation and pointed out that he thought that every nation, including that of the Jews, must have its own territory, for he thought that this would guarantee that the members of each nation would be treated equally even outside their own national territory. Having thought like this, he prospected the continuation of Jewish life in Diaspora, and his Zionism, Miyazaki concluded, did not contradict his loyalty to the Polish state.

 

Whereas contextuality was one of the main topics of the above-mentioned reports, equally important was the influence of the political culture of East Europe on that of the Yishuv and Israel.

Israel Bartal (Hebrew University, Israel) reevaluated Jewish emigration to Palestine by referring to their experiences of inner migration within the Russian Empire and the urbanization that began before the first Aliyah. Bartal pointed out that these experiences and the “Imperial environment” – geography, politics and culture – constituted a basis of Hebrew culture that was in the making in the Yishuv at that time. In other words, the creation of Jewish national culture in the Yishuv could be seen as nationalization of Imperial culture.

Ziva Galili (Rutgers University, U.S.) focused on the Hashomer-Hatsa’ir established in 1922 in the Soviet Union and its Kibbutz in Palestine. She analyzed the political culture of Kibbutz Hashomer-Hatsa’ir USRR and pointed out that its political ideology, slogan, organization, and so forth were influenced by those in the youth institutions in the USSR, such as gymnasia and Komsomol.

As for emigration from the USSR to Palestine, Chizuko Takao (Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Japan) explained its system by showing the relationship between three actors: Zionists (Halutzim), the Soviet authorities, and the Joint Distribution Committee in the U.S. Concerning Hehalutz, Rona Yona (New York University, U.S.) examined the dynamics of its organizational development in the interwar period as a trans-national phenomenon between Palestine and the Second Polish Republic.

David Engel (New York University, U.S.) and Nir Kedar (Sapir College, Israel) both clarified the influence of political culture in East Europe on that of Israel. Engel cited the Israeli civil law and settlement policy, and pointed out that the Zionist political motives and ideals could be categorized not in colonial policies of Western countries, as is often assumed, but in the policy of the Second Polish Republic, aiming at reinforcing a Polish national identity. Kedar analyzed Israeli ideas of law: ideas of rule of law, constitutional states, civic society, and the understanding of law as impressed by national culture. He pointed out that these ideas resembled not Anglo-American law but East European and especially imperial Russian ideas.

 

Benjamin Nathans (University of Pennsylvania, U.S.) discussed the Jewish civic movement for emigration that had made possible the mass exodus from the USSR in the 1970s. He pointed out that, while this movement could be categorized in national movements, its strategies had shared a lot with that of human rights movements in the U.S. and other countries.

Kenneth Moth (Johns Hopkins University, U.S.) explored memories written by young activists of Hehalutz in 1930s’ Poland and shed light on the mentality, which he called “futurelessness,” of the Polish-Jewish youth. He pointed out that what motivated them to Zionism was neither the glorious prospect of collective life in Kibbutz nor Hebrew culture but their eagerness for exodus from Poland.

 

Each session was followed by the comments and discussion. Here I do not delve into each of them in detail. I would rather like to briefly mention the discussion’s participants. Except for Mitsuharu Akao (Osaka University), whose research includes Jewish (Hebrew and Yiddish) literature, none of them were specialists of Jewish studies: Susumu Nonaka (Saitama University) specializes in Russian literature; Nobuo Shimotomai (Hosei University) in political history of the USSR and politics in general; Jun Yoshioka (Tsudajuku University) in Polish history; David Wolff (Hokkaido University) in modern Russian history and the history of the Far East. Their comments and questions to the speakers came from their curiosity connected with their own specialties, which brought some fresh air to the discussions. This is interesting, for it may reflect the way Jewish studies in Japan has been explored until now; in Japan, Jewish studies has been developed by expanding the scopes of individual researchers, whose main topics are in such different fields as German literature or Russian history, to include Jewish issues that have fundamental importance for the understanding of their original subjects. This sporadic method of development may cause a delay in the professionalization of Jewish studies in Japan, but at the same time, it has prevented the field from being exclusive to other research fields, and made it open to inter-disciplinary discussion. At the conference, one of the main points of the comments was the question of how we could connect the findings in Jewish studies organically with knowledge in neighboring research fields. This kind of question is worth being asked as Jewish studies continues to develop in Japan.

 

In concluding the conference, a general discussion was held.

First, Tsurumi announced that they planed to publish a collection of theses based on this conference, and asked the panelists and audience for ideas concerning the contents and the editorial line of this publication.

Discussions were, nevertheless, not only about publication but also about how to develop the points shown in the reports. Tsurumi mentioned that relationships between Jews and Arabs, which was an absent topic in this conference, could in future be reevaluated by referring to the topics discussed in this conference, such as the inner colonization of the Russian Empire oriented to organic relationships among different nationalities. The other participants pointed to possibilities of comparative studies of the Jewish Diaspora of the Russian Empire with that of the Spanish Empire, and to needs of expanding the scope to include issues concerning the British Empire, which had increasing importance after the collapse of the Russian Empire. It was also pointed out that the “influence” of ideas and forms, which was shown in the many papers in this conference, could be understood not only as phenomena of a one-way direction, i.e., influence of one to the other, but also as resonance of the same problematiques in plural places.

Concerning the publication, one of the main points was how the book should respond to the interests of would-be Japanese readers. Benjamin Nathans, the initiator of the general discussion and an editor of the planned book, first told that he knew that Japanese people, in most cases, developed their interest in Jewish studies from their concern in the current Palestine/Israel problem. Then he asked whether the coming book should be one for scholars and general readers of the U.S. and Israel, or should be a starting point of dialog with Japanese scholars, having in mind responding also to the Japanese general readers.

One of the audience, a Japanese scholar in Jewish studies, expressed her view that responding to Japanese readers’ concerns would be a sort of academic responsibility of the book, considering that the conference was held not at the centers of Jewish studies in the U.S. or in Israel, but in Tokyo. In contrast, most of the scholars from the U.S. and Israel expressed their negative view on whether the book could do so, for none of the papers directly dealt with Palestine/Israel issues, which might be the biggest need of Japanese readers. This is understandable, and it may be rather a task of scholars in Japan, both who were involved in this conference and who were not, to continue discussing how the coming book could stimulate Jewish studies in Japan as well as academics in general.

Concluding the general discussion, the participants expressed their high evaluation of the conference’s aim of scope.

Nathans stated that focusing the influence of the Imperial contexts to Zionism and Israel was quite important, and that the approach of the conference was even so, for it shifted the focus from the British Empire, whose influence had been obvious, to the Russian Empire, whose influence had been ignored but in reality must have been enormous. Bartal mentioned that he himself had been seen as a “revolutionary anti-Zionist historian” in Israel because of his non-Zionist approach, and shared his view that this conference would be utterly new and radical even if it had been held in Israel or in the U.S.

Tsurumi, the organizer, referred again to the advantage of the conference’s locality, Japan, where no political attention was required when organizing the program; he stated that he could invite any scholars he respected and whose research he thought was promising. The locality may be one of the positive aspects that made this conference so successful. But, as another factor, the organizer’s capability and the originality substantiated by his steady research are not to be forgotten.

 

So that the achievement of this conference will contribute not only to Jewish studies in general but also to promoting it in Japan specifically, it is an important task for scholars in Japan to discuss how they will translate the would-be-published book; in a narrow sense of the word, they will need to think about how they translate specific terminologies of Jewish studies, not only those used in the book, in Japanese; in a broad sense of the word, it will be a productive work to think about how they can efficiently translate, or transplant, the findings and knowledge to Japanese academics. Needless to say, this will not be – returning to the question above – the “academic responsibility” of the panelists at the conference only, but a cooperative task of the scholars engaged in Jewish studies in Japan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

会議レポート Report on the conference (English version to be posted)

西村木綿さん(京都大学大学院博士後期課程)が会議のレポートを寄せてくださいました。以下に掲載します。

会議のウェブサイト

http://park.saitama-u.ac.jp/~tsurumitaro/home.html

会議レポート

Mediating Israeli History and East European History

(邦題:イスラエル史と東欧史を仲介する――ロシアとポーランドからのシオニズムとユダヤ移民)

(2015年1月11日・12日、埼玉大学 東京ステーションカレッジ)

【概要】

本会議は、埼玉大学テニュアトラック定着事業の一環として、同大研究機構の鶴見太郎准教授のオーガナイズで開かれた公開シンポジウムである。イスラエルから六名、米国から四名、日本から三名が五つのセッションで研究報告を行い、セッションごとに、日本からの討論者を交えて議論が行われた。

オーディエンスには、イスラエル研究者、ユダヤ研究者のほか、(ユダヤ人を必ずしも直接の研究対象としては扱わない)東欧、ロシア研究者や、パレスチナ研究者や一般参加者も見られた。

まず、オーガナイザーの鶴見氏より会議の主旨が説明された。会議の主眼は、タイトルにある通り、ロシア・東欧とイスラエルの歴史を架橋する、ということにある。イスラエルの問題は、通例、「ヨーロッパ」と「中東」という枠組みで語られがちである。その場合、念頭に置かれている「ヨーロッパ」とは、ヘルツルやドレフュスの象徴する「西欧」であるが、実際には、シオニスト指導者の大半はロシアや東欧の出身であった。このことは、鶴見氏自身の研究や近年のユダヤ研究の進展によって日本の学界でも常識となりつつあるが、それでも、一般に浸透しているとは言い難い。会議の第一の目的は、ロシア・東欧の政治文化がユダヤ人のアイデンティティやシオニズムのあり方、また、イスラエルの政治文化にいかなる影響を与えたかを見ることにあると説明された。

第二の課題として、「脱本質化」ということが挙げられた。シオニズムは「ユダヤ人」の運動である。だが、その「ユダヤ人」とはいかなる存在であるのかということは本質的に規定されうるものではない。ユダヤ人のアイデンティティや、彼らのいう「ユダヤ性(Jewishness)」なるものは、ロシア・東欧諸国の地域性や、この地が時代とも経験した社会や政治の変容を受けて形成されたものであった。シオニズムやその背後にあるユダヤ・アイデンティティを、本質的ではなく「文脈的(contextual)」なものとして捉えなおすことが、第二の目的であると説明された。

最後に、第三の課題として、パレスチナ/イスラエル紛争という現在進行中の政治的な対立を背景に、しばしば政治的バイアスとともに語られがちなイスラエル史を「脱政治化」するということが言われた。会議がイスラエルでも米国でもなく、日本において、両国の研究者を集めて開かれることの積極的意味の一つはこの点にあると述べられた。

【セッション概要】

会議は二日間にわたり、四つのセッションがもたれた。会議は質疑応答も含め全て英語で行われ、配布資料やホームページなど関連の資料に記された報告タイトル等もすべて英語で表記されたが、あえて訳出すれば、各セッションのタイトルは以下のとおりである。第一セッション「ユダヤ性の変容とロシア」、第二セッション「帝国、そして『東』と『西』」、第三セッション「法、権利、市民権」(以上、第一日目)、第四セッション「民主主義と人口統計学(demography)、ポーランドの例」、第五セッション「社会主義そして、国境を越えたキブツ」(以上、第二日目)。以下、報告内容について簡単に記すが、セッションごとに厳密に分けるのではなく、先述の課題に関連づけてまとめてみたい(以下、報告者と討議者の敬称は省略する)。

報告は、1880年代のロシアのシオニズム運動の萌芽から、現代のイスラエルの法思想にいたるまで、時代幅も広く、扱うトピックも多岐に渡ったが、全報告を貫く軸として、ロシア・東欧の地域性や政治文化が多くの側面でユダヤ・アイデンティティやシオニズム、イスラエルのありように刻印を施していることが示された。

1880年代初頭のロシアのホヴェヴェイ・ツィオン(シオン愛好)運動についてのオルガ・リトヴァク(米、クラーク大学)の報告では、ロシア化したユダヤ知識人(男性)にとって、シオニズム運動が、シナゴーグなど伝統的ユダヤ社会における倫理の供給地に代わって、新たな共同体的倫理を提供する場であったことが指摘され、シオニズムが単に政治運動としてではなく、倫理や意識の革命として、広く、近代化に対する応答としてあったことが、ジェンダー論を踏まえつつ論じられた。鶴見太郎(埼玉大学)は、ロシア革命後の内戦で白軍の側について闘ったダニエル・パスマニクらシオニスト知識人の言説を分析し、彼らのユダヤ・アイデンティティが、多様性を包摂しつつ発展してきたロシア帝国の「国家性」への肯定的な評価と、その中でのユダヤ人の役割についての考察に基づくものであったことを指摘した。こうした「文脈的」な民族観は、ユダヤ人の民族性を他から独立した不変の実体として「本質的」に捉える見方とは対照的なものであるが、鶴見は、パスマニクらの議論が紡がれた時期であり、帝国から国民/民族国家体制への移行期でもあった1920年代初頭が、ユダヤ・アイデンティティの捉え方が文脈的なものから本質論的なものへ変遷する分岐点であったことを指摘した。

一方、ラフィ・ツィルキン=サダン(ヘブライ大学)の報告は、本質的なユダヤ民族観を唱えた代表的人物とも言える、ヴラディミール・ジャボティンスキーにかんするものであった。サダンはジャボティンスキの書いた歴史小説「サムソン」から、「西」と「東」の対立する表象を読み解き、ジャボティンスキが、ユダヤ民族再生のモチーフから東欧的な表象をことごとく斥け、西欧的な属性をあてがっていたことを示した。「西」と「東」の対立図式は、「ユダヤ領土機関」(世界シオニスト機構から分離したパレスチナにこだわらず世界の各地にユダヤ人の自治的領土を探し求めた)の指導者、イスラエル・ザングヴィルにおいても重要なものとしてあった。アリエ・サポスニク(ベン=グリオン大学)は、ザングヴィルのシオニズム思想に見られる弱肉強食的なネイション観や、近代化の移入による東洋的野蛮の征服といった観念が、当時の世界を分割支配していた帝国のありようを参照枠組みとしたものであったことを示した。そこには、「東洋」に出自をもつユダヤ人が「西洋」の植民地主義に対して、仲介者としていかなる積極的貢献をなしうるかという視点もあったことが指摘された。

以上の報告が、大雑把に言えば、ユダヤ・アイデンティティのありようを帝国の文脈に照らして捉え直すものであったとすれば、ポーランド生まれのシオニスト、アポリナルィ・ハルトグラスのシオニズム思想についての宮崎悠(北海道教育大学)の報告は、ポーランド・ナショナリズムという、より個別的な現象がユダヤ・アイデンティティに与えた影響を浮き彫りにするものであった。宮崎によれば、ハルトグラスは、あらゆる民族は自身の領土を持つべきと考えたが、その際、あらゆる国家の中にマイノリティがいるということは当然のこととされていた。民族領土を持つことが、民族領土の外でもユダヤ人が平等に扱われるために必要だと考えたハルトグラスのシオニズムは、ディアスポラ(ポーランド)でのユダヤ人の生活の存続を前提としたものであり、ポーランド国家への彼の忠誠と矛盾するものではなかったと宮崎は指摘した。

ユダヤ・アイデンティティの「文脈性」が以上の報告の一つの軸をなすとすれば、他の報告に見られたもう一つの軸は、ロシア・東欧の政治文化が委任統治期のパレスチナのイシューヴやイスラエルの政治文化に与えた影響であるといえる。

イスラエル・バルタル(ヘブライ大学)の報告は、パレスチナへの移民現象を、第一アリヤー(1881年〜1903年)以前に起こっていた大規模な帝国内移動と都市化との連続性のもとに捉え直し、その移動の体験や、地理、政治、文化などの広い意味での「帝国の環境」が、イシューヴで形成されつつあったヘブライ文化の基底をなしていたこと、言い換えれば、イシューヴにおけるユダヤ人の国民/民族文化の形成が、帝国文化の「国民/民族化」と呼びうるものであったことを指摘した。また、ツィヴァ・ガリーリ(米、ラトガーズ大学)は、1922年にソ連で設立された社会主義シオニスト青年組織「ハショメル・ハツァイル」がパレスチナに建設したキブツに焦点をあて、その政治文化――政治理念、スローガン、組織形態——に、構成員たちがソ連のギムナジウムやコムソモールでの体験を通じて得たソ連の政治文化の影響が色濃く見られることを指摘した。

なお、ソ連からパレスチナへの移民については、クリミアにおけるへハルーツ(シオニスト青年組織)の農業入植地に焦点をあてた高尾千津子(東京医科歯科大学)の報告が、シオニスト(ハルツィーム)、ソ連当局、米国の支援機関「合同分配委員会(ジョイント)」という三つのアクターの相互関係を交えて示した。また、ロナ・ヨナ(ニューヨーク大学)の報告は、両大戦間期のへハルーツの組織的な発展を、ポーランドとパレスチナを跨ぐ「トランスナショナル」な動きとしてダイナミックに跡づけるものであった。

デイヴィッド・エンゲル(ニューヨーク大学)ニル・ケダル(イスラエル、サピル大学)の報告は、ロシア・東欧の政治文化が、市民法や法の理念といった、イスラエルの統治の根幹をなす原理にも深く影響を与えていることを浮き彫りにするものであった。エンゲルは、市民法や入植政策などの例を挙げつつ、パレスチナにおけるシオニストの政治の動機と理念が、しばしば言われるように西欧列強の植民地政策(原住民からの収奪)に類するものではなく、民族/国民アイデンティティの維持と強化を至上命題とした第二共和国期(1918年〜1939年)のポーランドにこそ通じていることを指摘した。カダルは、法の支配、法治国家、市民社会の概念、そして民族/国民文化(national culture)文化の刻印を帯びたものとしての「法」理解などを法学的な観点から個別に分析し、これらの概念が多くの場合、英米におけるそれよりは、東欧、とりわけ帝政期のロシアのそれと類似していることを指摘した。

ほかに、1970年代のソ連からのユダヤ人の大量出国を実現した移民運動を論じ、この運動が、一方で民族運動の文脈に位置づけられるものでありながら、その戦略や手法において、合衆国やその他諸国での人権運動とむしろ重なる部分が大きいということを指摘したベンジャミン・ネイサンズ(ペンシルベニア大学)の報告や、1930年代のポーランドにおけるへハルーツの活動家の手記から、この時期のポーランドのユダヤ人青年を特徴づける「未来の展望の欠如(futurelessnesss)」という心理を浮き彫りにし、彼らをシオニズムへ駆り立てたのが、キブツでの恊働生活やヘブライ文化などの輝かしい理念ではなく、ポーランドからの脱出への希求であったと指摘したケニス・モス(米、ジョンズ・ホプキンス大学)の報告も、ユダヤ人のアイデンティティや政治文化のありように多角的に光を当てる興味深い報告であった。

【討議について】

各セッションの討議については省略するが、討論者についていえば、第一セッション討論者の赤尾光春(大阪大学、ロシア文学・ユダヤ文学)を除けば、全員、ユダヤ研究の専門家ではなく(第二セッション=野中進〔埼玉大学、ロシア文学〕、第二セッション=下斗米伸夫〔法政大学、政治学・ソ連政治史〕、第三セッション=吉岡潤〔ポーランド史〕、第五セッション=デイヴィッド・ウルフ〔北海道大学、近現代ロシア史、シベリア極東史〕)、それぞれが自身の専門的関心に引きつけながら発表者への問いかけを行ったことは新鮮なことであった。日本では、ユダヤ研究、たとえばドイツ文学やロシア史など、隣接する学問分野の研究者が個々の関心を拡張する中で開拓されてきた面が強い。このことは、日本におけるユダヤ研究に専門性や体系性においてなお脆弱さが残されている要因の一つであるといえるが、他方で、ユダヤ研究を一つの専門分野に閉じこめず、隣接領域と絶えず接続させる風通しのいい研究土壌がつくられる良い意味での要因にもなってきた。各討論者のコメントは、大雑把にまとめれば、いずれも、それぞれの専門分野の知見がユダヤ研究の知見といかに有機的に接続されうるかを問うものであったといえるが、こうした視点は、今後、日本においてユダヤ研究がさらに専門的・体系的に発展していく中でも、絶えず、保たれたい視点である。

最後に、プログラムの最後に持たれた全体討議についてまとめておきたい。

全体討議では、まず、オーガナイザーの鶴見から、会議の報告をもとにした論集の刊行を計画していることが述べられ、この論集をどのようなものとするべきかという論題が示された。

討議の前半は、この提起を受けつつも、出版計画にとどまらず、会議で示された論点をどのように展開していくかという幅広い内容のものであった。たとえば、オーガナイザーからは、パレスチナにおけるユダヤ人・アラブ人の関係という本会議では未着手のトピックにかんし、この問題についても、イギリス帝国の植民地モデルではなく、多様なエスニック集団の有機的な民族関係を志向したロシア帝国の国内入植のモデルを参照項として捉え直すことができるのではないか、という展望が示された。また、他の報告者やオーディエンスからは、ロシア帝国のユダヤ・ディアスポラとスペイン帝国のそれとの比較研究の可能性や、ロシア帝国解体後のユダヤ史・シオニズム史の新たなステージとして、イギリス帝国との関係へ視野を拡げていくことなどが提起された。また、本会議で示された様々な理念や形態の「影響」関係そのものを、一方向の動きとしてではなく、複数の場における同一の問題系の共振として捉えることができるのでないか、との指摘もなされた。

討議の後半では、出版計画についてが論点となったが、とくに、これから編まれていく本が、日本の読者の問題関心にどのように応えるべきか、ということが課題として指摘された。全体討議の司会者を務めたネイサンズは、ユダヤ研究への日本人の関心の出発点が、多くの場合、現代のパレスチナ/イスラエル問題であるということに触れつつ、これから編まれる本が米国やイスラエルのユダヤ研究者や一般読者を念頭においた研究書の一つとなるべきか、あるいは、日本における関心のありようを踏まえた上で、日本の研究者との対話の出発点となる本とすべきか、と問いかけた。オーディエンスの日本の研究者からは、この会議がユダヤ研究の中心であるイスラエルでも米国でもなく、他ならぬ東京で開かれたことを踏まえるならば、日本の読者の関心に応えることはこの本の学術的な責務の一つではないかという指摘がなされた。もっとも、会議ではパレスチナ/イスラエル問題に直結する報告はなく、それゆえこれについての日本の読者の関心に直接応えることは難しいというのが、米国・イスラエルからの報告者の主な反応ではあった。しかしながら、日本という場の特質が、論集のみならずこれからの(イスラエル、米国、日本での)ユダヤ研究の展開に寄与できるためには、この問いについては(報告者やオーディエンスなど会議の直接の参加者にとどまらず)幅広く議論を続けていく必要があるだろう。

全体討議では、最後に、この会議の構成や着眼点の新しさについて、米国・イスラエルの研究者から改めて高い評価が示された。このことは、さきに述べた場所性の問題とも関連して重要な点であると思われる。ネイサンズは、本会議の主題の一つであった「帝国」の文脈のシオニズムやイスラエルの影響について、着眼点を、影響関係を見通しやすいイギリス帝国から、これまで見逃されてきたが実際には緊密な影響関係があったはずのロシア帝国へと移行したことが、新しく、きわめて重要なアプローチであると評価した。バルタルは、シオニズム史観に乗らないアプローチゆえに、自身、イスラエルでは長らく「革命的な反シオニズムの歴史家」とみなされてきたことに触れつつ、この会議が仮にイスラエルや米国で開かれていたとしても、まったく新しいラディカルなものであっただろうと指摘した。

オーガナイザーの鶴見は、そうした新しい取り組みを自由に行えた要因の一つとして、米国やイスラエルとは異なり、報告者の人選や会議の構成に際して政治的な配慮が必要とされない、日本という場の長所に言及した。だが、それもさることながら、この会議が国外の学問成果の輸入や紹介にとどまらず、そのような次元を遥かに越えた創造的なものでありえたことは、まずもって、オーガナイザーの手腕と、地道な研究に裏付けられた着眼点の斬新さによるといえるだろう。その成果が、さらに日本の学問そのものをも牽引する力にもなるためには、これから編まれていく論集をいかに「翻訳」していくかが重要な作業となるように思われた。つまり、学術用語の選定といった狭義の翻訳を含め、その成果を日本での学術的知見と接続する作業が望まれるが、このことはむろん、(先の問いに立ち返れば)報告者のみに課された学術的な責務ではなく、ユダヤ研究に携わる日本のすべての研究者が恊働でとりくむべき課題であるといえよう。

Chronology and Glossary

Chronology

1772 First Partition of Poland

1861 Peasants emancipated in Russia

1863 January Uprising in Poland

1881 Pogroms in South Russia

1882 Zionist Movement began (as “Hibbat Zion”) in Russia and Eastern Europe; Leon Pinsker’s Auto-Emancipation! published

1896 Herzl’s The Jewish State published

1897 The First Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland; The World Zionist Organization established

1903–06 Pogroms in Russia and Poland starting from Kishinev (the capital of present-day Moldova)

1904 The Second Aliya started (many future Labor Zionist leaders to Palestine); Russo-Japanese War

1905 The 1905 Revolution in Russia

1909 The first kibbutz established in Degania, north Palestine; City of Tel Aviv established

1914 First World War

1917 The Russian Revolution; The Balfour Declaration

1917–1922 Russian Civil War

1918 Poland becomes independent

1919 Polish-Soviet War

1921 Jaffa riots in Palestine

1924 Death of Lenin; Soviet Constitution effective

1926 May Coup by Piłsudski in Poland

1928 First Five Year Plan in USSR

1935 Death of Piłsudski

1936 Stalin Constitution effective

1939 Invasion of Poland begins

1943 Warsaw Ghetto Uprising

1948 Israel’s declaration of independence

1964 PLO established

1967 Israel’s victory in Six-Day War (Third Arab-Israeli War)

1968 Jews partially granted exit visas to Israel from USSR

1987 Intifada

1990 Large immigration of Soviet (or FSU) Jews into Israel began

1993 Oslo Accords signed

 

Glossary

Reference: Wikipedia, Encyclopaedia Judaica, YIVO Encyclopedia of Jews in Eastern Europe

Aliyah, “ascent” in Hebrew, denotes Zionist immigration into Palestine/Israel.

Civil War (Russia) began in 1917 when Bolsheviks came into power. Basically, the Bolshevik Red Army and the White Army, the loosely allied anti-Bolshevik forces mainly consist of Liberals and Tsarists, fought each other. By 1920, the Red Army became dominant in most areas in the future USSR.

Dissident Movement in the Soviet Union became highlighted in the Western media from the early 1970s. Soviet dissidents were citizens of the Soviet Union who disagreed with the policies and actions of the Soviet Communist Party and the Soviet government and actively protested against these actions through either violent or non-violent means.

Druyanov, Alter (1870-1938) is a Hebrew writer, researcher, editor, and Zionist activist born in the Vilna region of the Russian Empire.

Hashomer Hatza’ir, translated as The Youth Guard, is a Socialist Zionist Jewish youth movement that was founded in 1913 in Galicia and spread all over Eastern Europe and Palestine. It became a foundation of the Kibbutz movement, and was involved in Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in 1943.

Haskalah was an enlightenment movement among European Jews that began in 18th-century Germany. It paved the way for the modernization of Jewish society, sometimes resulting in assimilation of Jews into the surrounding society or the high culture of the country. In Eastern Europe, it often evolved into Jewish nationalism.

Hebrew is an official language of State of Israel along with Arabic, and one of the so-called national languages of the Jewish people (others would be Yiddish and Ladino). It is categorized into a Semitic language like Arabic.

Hechalutz (Hehalutz), literally meaning “The Pioneer,” was an association of Jewish youth whose aim was to train its members to settle in the Land of Israel. Emerging in 1880s and developing during World War I, it became an umbrella organization of the pioneering Zionist youth movements.

Herzl, Theodor (1860-1904) was a journalist in the German-speaking world and a Zionist activist famed as “the Father of Zionism.” He published The Jewish State in 1896 and founded the World Zionist Organization in 1897. He put weight on diplomacy unlike many contemporaneous Russian Zionists, who emphasized settlement in Palestine and communal activity in the Diaspora.

Histadrut, a common name of General Organization of Workers in the Land of Israel, is the Zionist organization of trade unions established in 1920 in Palestine and became the foundation of Labor Zionism in Palestine/Israel.

Jabotinsky, Vladimir (Ze’ev) (1880-1940) was a Revisionist Zionist leader, author, poet, orator, soldier. He co-founded the Jewish Legion of the British army in World War I and established several Zionist military organizations later. He is the most famous leader in the history of the Zionist Right.

Joint (The American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee) is the largest nonpolitical organization dedicated to helping Jews in distress all over the world. It was founded shortly after the breakout of First World War to aid Jewish war sufferers.

Kibbutz is a collective community in Palestine/Israel based on agriculture with a socialist inclination. The first kibbutz was established in 1909. In recent times, some kibbutzim (the plural of kibbutz) have been privatized.

Labor Zionism, often referred to as Socialist Zionism, is a faction of Zionism that is categorized into the Zionist Left and was the mainstream in the Zionist movement and politics in Palestine/Israel in most of the 20th century. Many of its members including David Ben-Gurion, first Prime Minister of Israel, have retained some socialist inclination but the core principle has been the cultivation of the Land of Israel (Eretz Israel) by Jewish labor.

Lilienblum, Moshe Leib (1843-1910) was a famous Jewish scholar and author who became a Zionist leader in the initial stage of the movement. Just like Leon Pinsker, another famed Zionist leader, he began his early career as a Jewish enlightener (maskil).

National Democrat (Poland) is a political party that led Polish nationalism in the late 19th century and early 20th century. Its leader includes Roman Dmowski. Ideologically, it promoted the Piast (the first ruling dynasty of Poland) Concept, calling for a Polish-speaking Catholic Poland with little role for minorities.

Refusnik denotes individuals who were denied permission to emigrate abroad by the authorities of the USSR and other countries of the Eastern bloc. Many of them were Soviet Jews. In the Israeli context, Natan Sharansky would be the most representative figure.

Revisionist Zionism is the non-religious Zionist Right, which was established in the early 1920s by V. Jabotinsky in opposition to Labor Zionism and the main stream’s “compromise” with the British Empire. The current ruling party Likud originates in this movement.

Romer, Eugeniusz (1871–1954) was a distinguished Polish geographer, cartographer and geopolitician, whose maps and atlases are still highly valued by Polish experts

Shtetl denotes small towns with large Jewish population which existed in Central and Eastern Europe before the Holocaust.

Tartakover, Aryeh (1897–1982) is a sociologist, demographer, and communal leader. Born in Eastern Galicia, he lectured on the sociology of the Jews at the Institute of Jewish Sciences (YIVO) in Warsaw. He was founder and chairman of Hitaḥadut, the Labor Zionist organization in Poland, and also served as an alderman of the city of Lodz during 1938–39.

Territorialism (in Jewish history) denotes a Jewish political movement that emerged in the early 20th century, calling for creation of a sufficiently large and compact Jewish territory (or territories), not necessarily in Palestine and not necessarily fully autonomous. Its most famous leader was Israel Zangwill.

Yiddish is a language widely spoken among Jewish people in Eastern Europe and Russia until the Holocaust. Written with Hebrew alphabets, it originates in Middle High German with several Hebrew and Slavic vocabularies.

Yishuv, “settlement” in Hebrew, refers to Jewish (especially Zionist) settlement in Palestine before 1948.

Zangwill, Israel (1864–1926) is an Anglo-Jewish writer and political activist, whose parents were from Eastern Europe. He founded Jewish Territorialist Organization in 1905. His famous novels include Children of the Ghetto (1892) and The Melting Pot (1909).

Lecture by Anne Eakin Moss on Russian literature

Anne Eakin Moss氏講演会のお知らせ

ロシア文学・文化を特に女性に関して研究されている米ジョンズ・ホプキンズ大学のAnne Eakin Moss氏が来日されるのを機に、以下の講演会を開催することにいたしました。文学理論に関する英文誌の編集にも携わっておられ、英文での論文投稿についてのお話をすることもできるとのことです。年始の平日開催で恐縮ですが、みなさま万障お繰り合わせの上お越しください。

Title 題目:“The Fate of Community in Late Russian Realism: Tolstoy, Chekhov, Gorky”

Date 日時:Jan/7/2015, 5:00-6:30 pm 2015年1月7日(水)、17:00~18:30(終了後に周辺で懇親会を予定しています)

Location 場所:Waseda University (Toyama Campus), Bldg. 33, 16F, Room 10 早稲田大学戸山キャンパス33号館16階第10会議室 Bldg. 33, located in the center of the campus, is the tallest building in the campus. 33号館は、文学部がある戸山キャンパス(大隈講堂のある早稲田キャンパスとは違います)の中央にあり、戸山キャンパスで最も背の高い新しい建物です。

Access アクセス:5 min. from Metro Tozai Line Waseda Station 東京メトロ東西線早稲田駅徒歩5分 http://www.waseda.jp/top/access/toyama-campus

主催:埼玉大学研究機構鶴見研究室
共催:早稲田大学文学部ロシア語ロシア文学コース、およびロシア研究所

Registration 事前申込:Unnecessary 不要

Language 使用言語:English 英語(通訳なし。ただしロシア語での質問も受け付けます。
また、日本語でのご発言に対して、大雑把な通訳をすることは可能です)

On Anne 講演者について:ジョンズ・ホプキンズ大学ウェブサイト

http://humctr.jhu.edu/bios/anne-eakinmoss/

Abstract 講演要旨:

While the age of the classic Russian novel produced the great psychologically tormented and socially outcast heroes and heroines of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, it also imagined such transcendent communities as the Russian nation, Christian brotherhood, the folk and the commune. That age effectively came to an end in the 1880s with the deaths of Dostoevsky and Turgenev in 1881 and 1883 and the circulation of Tolstoy’s Confession in 1882. This paper examines the fate of community in Realist fiction of the late 1880s and 1890s, when the literary movements of Decadence and Symbolism reshaped the terms of aesthetic representation, and revolutionary foment and political reaction preoccupied civil society. As the turn of the century drew near, the utopian ideals and happy endings of the 1860s gave way to a sense of meaninglessness in the present. This paper will show how narrative fiction represented the breakdown in community and brotherhood, becoming instead preoccupied with the problem of sex and desire. The paper will discuss Leo Tolstoy’s “Kreutzer Sonata” (“Крейцерова соната,” 1889) and Resurrection (Воскресение, 1899); Anton Chekhov’s “A Nervous Breakdown” (“Припадок,” 1888), “Peasants” (“Мужики,” 1897) and The Three Sisters (Три сестры, 1901); and Maksim Gorky’s “26 and One” (“26 и одна,” 1898) and “Vaska the Red” (“Васька Красный,” 1899). It will treat briefly the influence of philosophers including Arthur Schopenhauer, Friedrich Nietzsche, Nikolai Fyodorov and Vasily Rozanov. The focus of the paper will be on the formal strategies of representing relations among characters, and particularly the relations among women in these stories. Finally, the paper will also show how Chekhov’s profound skepticism about the possibility of community based on transcendent values resonates with the philosophical critiques of community in the works of contemporary philosophers Jean-Luc Nancy and Maurice Blanchot.