Jewish Anti-semitic ideology

Q5.

Using the theories of Roland Barthes discuss one image from the mass media that is, in your opinion a representation of a certain cultural ideology or ‘Myth’.

Reflecting on the ideas of Roland Barthes this essay will argue that anti-semitic ideology or ‘Myth’ as Barthes refers to it, is present in the dialogue and actions of Jewish actors and comedians.

The online Compact Oxford English Dictionary would define the conventional sense of myth as:

Noun 1: a traditional story concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, typically involving the supernatural.

2: a widely held but false belief.

3: a fictitious person or thing. (2009, Oxford University Press)

However according to Barthes (2000, pp.109-110); ‘Myth is a type of speech’; therefore everything can be a myth provided it is conveyed by language because there is no law, natural or not that forbids the discussion of things. Myth is not confined to oral speech; it can be modes of written discourse, photography, film, sport, T.V shows and publicity. Barthes states that there are no eternal myths as it is human speech that depicts the life and death of mythical language therefore as myth is a type of speech chosen from history it can’t evolve from the nature of things.

Barthes purpose for discussing myth is mainly political. And in the ‘Preface’ to the 1957 edition of Mythologies he states ‘I resented seeing Nature and History confused at every turn, and I wanted to track down, in the decorative display of what-goes-without-saying, the ideological abuse which, in my view, is hidden there’. (2000, p.11). He believed that myths are examples of ‘depoliticised speech’, ways of persuading us that something that is highly ideological, highly partisan, and highly historical, is really only a matter of universal common sense.

First posited by Saussure (1974) Barthes wanted to address semiology in a more methodical fashion on popular culture. In his essay ‘Myth Today’ he looks at Saussure’s

Schema of signifier/signified = sign and adds to it a second level of signification. (2006, p.93) In Elements of Semiology, Barthes, (1967) substitutes signifier/signified for the more familiar terms ‘denotation’ and ‘connotation’. ‘Denotation’ tends to be described as the definitional, literal, obvious or commonsense meaning of a sign. The term 'connotation' is used to refer to the socio-cultural and 'personal' associations (ideological, emotional etc.) of the sign. As Fiske puts it 'denotation is what is photographed, connotation is how it is photographed' (Fiske, 1982, p.91).

Barthes came to the conclusion that 'denotation is not the first meaning, but pretends to be so; under this illusion, it is ultimately no more than the last of the connotations (the one which seems both to establish and close the reading), the superior myth by which the text pretends to return to the nature of language, to language as nature’. (Barthes, 1974, p.9). In short, connotation produces the illusion of denotation, and of the signifier and the signified as being identical. Therefore denotation is just another connotation. Denotation then can be seen as no more of a 'natural' meaning than is connotation but rather as a process of naturalisation.

Barthes often discussed aspects of ideologies as mythical and this is one of the fundamental assumptions of Marxism. A Marxist take on ideology would be that it is used to indicate how some texts and practices present distorted images of reality. (Storey, 2006, p.2). In Karl Marxs’ The German Ideology he defines ideology itself as the representation of the ‘production of ideas, of conceptions, of consciousness,’ all that ‘men say, imagine, conceive,’ and include such things as ‘politics, laws, morality, religion, metaphysics, etc.’ (2001, p.47). Ideology then functions as the ‘superstructure’ of a civilisation: the conventions and culture that make up the dominant ideas of a society. This ruling class will then benefit from this particular economic organization of society.

An alternative Marxist take on ideology is found in the ideas of Louis Althusser. He begins by rejecting the mechanistic interpretation of the base/superstructure formulation and instead insists on the concept of social formation and ideology as a material practice. In Althussers’ essay Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses: Notes Toward an Investigation, his theory of ideology draws on Freud's and Lacan's concepts of the unconscious and mirror-phase respectively, and describes the structures and systems that enable the concept of the self. These structures, for Althusser, are both agents of repression and inevitable meaning it is impossible to escape ideology and to not be subjected to it. (1971, pp. 121-17) What he means by this is that ideology is encountered in the practices of everyday life and not just in certain ideas of everyday life, he believes that by setting our own rituals and customs binds us to this social formation a formation that is marked by status, wealth and power. Althussers’ term used to describe recognising ourselves in this ideology is interpellation: ‘which is the process by which agents (individuals) acquire their self-awareness as subjects, and the skills and attributes necessary for their social placement’. (Marshall, G. 1998)

An example of Anti-Marxism would be National Socialism: commonly known as Nazism, it is a German political movement initiated in 1920 with the organisation of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, or NSDAP). The movement culminated in the establishment of the Third Reich, the totalitarian German state led by the dictator Adolf Hitler from 1933 to 1945. (Microsoft, 2008).

The National Socialist ideology was an outgrowth of earlier political theories that also gave birth to Fascism: a political, oppressive and dictatorial controlling movement that first became popular in Italy. Nazism brought together the ideas of racial Antisemitism (that Jews were inferior by virtue of their race, or genetic makeup), Social Darwinism (that certain individuals or ethnic groups are dominant because of their inherent genetic superiority e.g the ‘Aryan Race’, and Lebensraum (the belief that Germans needed more ‘living space’, i.e. more territory). (Rozett & Spector, 2002)

 Nazism also embraced the attitude of total anti-Bolshevism. The Nazi Party’s chief ideologist, Alfred Rosenburg matched the Jews with the Soviet Bolshevists, creating ‘Judeo-Bolshevism’. Now all of a sudden, American-Jewish lobbyists and the Bolshevist enemy in the Soviet Union were two sides of the same coin. This became extremely useful as a propaganda tool during the war, in particular following the United States’ entry.

According to The Danish Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies ‘The political goal of the ideology was to establish a totalitarian state, that is to say a modern, bureaucratic state, where the government is completely dominant in relation to the individual. It is thus a purpose of the regime to monopolise all human activities, both private and public’. (Vogelsang, P. & Larsen, B. 2002)

Antisemitism however, is not a history lesson it exists in a current global scale. The 21^st Century is responsible for a new wave of antisemitism, titled ‘New Antisemitism’ and according to minister Lois Olena, there are six groups responsible: Islamic reactionaries; ‘the Left’ (a catch-all phrase for intellectuals/academics - including university students and faculty, progressives, elites, the media, journalists, and scientists who hold anti-Jewish or anti-Israeli views); ‘the extreme Right’ (neo-Nazi, skinhead, Holocaust-denying, Ku Klux Klan, White supremacist types); certain African-Americans (e.g., Nation of Islam); the Christian world (the extreme Christian Right and denominations divesting in Israeli economics and/or academics); and ‘self-hating’ Jews (such as Adam Shapiro and Woody Allen).
(Olena, 2006)

A typical example of ‘self-hating’ Jews is what appears to be the encouragement of anti-semitism through comedy, e.g Woody Allen, Sarah Silverman & Sacha Boran Cohen.

Using the example of Sacha Boran Cohen, who is proudly Jewish, and his film ‘Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan’ starring his farcical anti-Semitic character ‘Borat’ as the lead role, you have to question whether he is encouraging anti-semitic ideology or not.

Most would have some understanding of Jewish history and Cohens’ tongue-in-cheek humour and would clearly see that Cohen is using his comedic technique, to use humour to unmask the absurd prejudices and irrational side of anti-semitism, and other phobias born of ignorance and fear. However, in 2006 The Anti-Defamation League issued a statement expressing concerns of his boastful anti-semitism: ‘While Mr. Cohen's brand of humor may be tasteless and even offensive to some, we understand that the intent is to dash stereotypes, not to perpetuate them.  It is our hope that everyone in the audience will come away with an understanding that some types of comedy that work well on screen do not necessarily translate well in the real world -- especially when attempted on others through retelling or mimicry. We are concerned, (…) that one serious pitfall is that the audience may not always be sophisticated enough to get the joke, and that some may even find it reinforcing their bigotry’. (ADL, 2006)

As Paul Lewis points out in ‘Cracking Up: American Humor in a Time of Conflict’, irony and joke-making is not always a way of telling truth to power. In fact, it can be a conveniently slippery way of refusing to take responsibility for actions or utterances, a way of reinforcing the sorts of stereotypes that make the joker and his or her audience feel good at the expense of the butt of the joke. (2006, p.43)

The danger of comedy is that it can reinforce stereotypes and trivialise hatred as well as belittling it, allowing the critique of the haters that ‘they are a joke,’ but allowing them the excuse that ‘we were only joking.’ The ease with which a group of people were encouraged to sing along with Borats’ grossly racist ‘Throw the Jew Down the Well’ draws attention to antisemitism and its loathing, but it can also end up simply normalising it. (Friedman, 2006)

When using such words as ‘normalisation’ Barthes may agree that Cohen is entertaining his idea of myth here and according to the Telegraph columnist Richard Howes, 2006: ‘It's precisely because Borat is so funny that his stage anti-Semitism is so dangerous. People laugh, absorb it and internalise it. Postmodernist irony only gets you so far’.

Reflecting on Althussers theory of ‘Interpellation’ Cohen and other Jewish comedians recognise themselves in this anti-semitic ideology and are consequently acting as agents of repression, causing themselves to be unable to escape this ideology.

Barthes may also say that whilst Cohen is denoting anti-semitism he is trying to connote the reverse but is actually presenting a distorted image of reality and inadvertently promoting that which he seeks to condemn.

Bibliography

Althusser, L. (1970), ‘Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses’ in Lenin and Philosophy and other Essays (1971), translated by Ben Brewster.

Anti-Defamation League, (2006) [Internet] Available from: [Accessed 30^th March 2009]

Barthes, R. (2000) ‘Mythologies’, London, Vintage.

Barthes, R. (1967) ‘Elements of Semiology’, London, Jonathan Cape

Barthes, R. (1974) ‘S/Z’, London, Jonathan Cape

Fiske, J. (1982) ‘Introduction to Communication Studies’. London, Routledge

Friedman, D. (2006) ‘Funny Anti-Semitism is Good for the Jews’ [Internet] Available from: New York, [Accessed 30^th March 2009]

Howes, R. (2006) ‘Borat and the anti-Semitism question’ [Internet] Available from: Telegraph Media Group Ltd. London[Accessed 30^th March 2009]

Lewis, P. (2006) ‘Cracking Up: American Humor in a time of conflict’  USA, The University of Chicago Press Ltd.

Marshall, G. (1998) ‘A Dictionary of Sociology: Interpellation’ [Internet]Available from: <http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O88-interpellation.html>[Accessed 30^thMarch 2009]

Marx, K. & Engels, F. (2001) ‘The German Ideology Part One’, NY, International Publishers.

Microsoft (Encarta) ‘National Socialism’ [Internet] Online Encyclopedia 2008,Microsoft Corporation. Available from:[Accessed 30^thMarch 2009]

Olena, L. (2006) ‘The Phenomenon of the New Anti-Semitism’ [Internet] Missouri, US. Available from: [Accessed 30^th March 2009]

Robert Rozett & Shmuel Spector, G.G. (2002) ‘Encyclopedia of the Holocaust’, edited by The Jerusalem Publishing House Ltd. Jerusalem.

Saussure, F. (1974) ‘Course in General Linguistics’, London, Fontana.

Simpson, J. & Weiner, E. (2005) ‘Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English’, [Internet] Oxford University Press, Oxford, Available from: <http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/myth?view=uk>[Accessed 30^th March 2009]

Storey, J. (2006) ‘Cultural Theory and Popular Culture: An Introduction’, 4^thed. Essex, Pearson Education Ltd.

Vogelsang, P. & Larsen, B. B. M. (2002) ‘The Nazi Ideology’ [Internet] The Danish Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Available from: < http://www.holocaust-education.dk/baggrund/nazismensideologi.asp> [Accessed 30^th March 2009]