Ambivalence and ambiguity explain antisemitic othering better than antisemitism does

Evidence

Recent work on the representation, attitudes towards, and responses to Jews in liberal cultures has emphasized that the concept of antisemitism is limited as an analytical tool. Instead, scholars such as Cheyette, building on much earlier theoretical work (Sartre, 1948; Fanon 1986), argue that the terms “ambivalence” and “ambiguity” are more helpful in explaining the way in which Jews have been constructed at any one time and place (Cheyette, 1993). The construction of the “Jew” as “other” may involve positive and negative elements representing both the anxieties and desires of the majority society and culture. — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 520

Categorization

• DEFINE: Foregrounds the ambivalence-versus-antisemitism terminological debate the reader is after for definitional grounding.
• XREF: Echoes Sartre’s and Fanon’s ambivalence frameworks used throughout the vault for colonial and racial othering. — connects to: Anti-Semitism is pathological projection stripped of self-reflection, not projection itself — Theodor W. Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Dialectic of Enlightenment, 150; Toleration itself can function as a subtle form of antisemitism demanding conformity — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 525; Anti-Semitic prejudice exaggerates Jewish power rather than disparaging incompetence (+1 more)

Broader Connections

• Anti-Semitism is pathological projection stripped of self-reflection, not projection itself #corroborates (0.82) — Theodor W. Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Dialectic of Enlightenment, 150
• Toleration itself can function as a subtle form of antisemitism demanding conformity #expands (0.78) — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 525
• Anti-Semitic prejudice exaggerates Jewish power rather than disparaging incompetence #expands (0.78)