March 3, 2010

According to Zygmunt Bauman, who cites the term from elsewhere, allosemitism – that is, the Jew as other – is at the root of both philosemitism and antisemitism. He describes as the objectification of the Jew, either for the purposes of elevating Jews or suppressing them, all while in comparison to another group – either us, Christians, Europeans. This tendency to objectify the Other in order to form one’s own identity can be discussed in the works of Levinas, who identifies the process by which the Self attempts to totalize the Other in both relating to it and in defining itself. Because the Other is required to form self-identity, any variation in the Other, either through a change from one thing to another or through the presence of multiple Others within the one Other group, is suppressed. The Self cannot tolerate the ambiguities present in the Other.
Nevertheless, there are ambiguities in both the Other and in the Self. This can be seen most clearly in relational theology, where the Other and the Self are fluid in their essence and in their relationships. Thus, a web of interactions is necessary for describing the relationship(s) rather than just a single line from Self –> Other and vice versa.
For Christianity, the Other who is most often used in identity formation and whose change and variation appears the least tolerated is Judaism.
John Pawlikowksi, though not dealing with identity formation of Christianity per se, identifies the problem of Christology as that which makes Christianity unique, but that which, at the same time, has caused the most problems in relationship with Judaism. That is, the issue of Christ has often been framed as an identificatory factor in such a way that Judaism is used to contrast with the formation of Christ, and thus of Christianity. The challenge for Pawlikowski is to create a Christology that remains unique, thus buttressing the existence of Christianity as a world religion, without demeaning Judaism in any way, or proposing that Judaism is wrong, misled, or has rejected Christ to its peril.
So how does this fit with allosemitism? A Christology that seeks to relate to Judaism often reifies Judaism, or treats it as a static Other that does not change. A proper christological theology of Israel (and what exactly that means is up for debate) must understand the status of the chosen people of Israel as a fluid and relational one. Israel is not only the historic community prior to Jesus, it is also the ongoing Jewish community that exists in the 21st century. Israel is not simply those observant Jews who live in the nation of Israel, it is also those diasporic secular, humanist Jews who do not ascribe a religious component to their self-identity. Therefore, a Christian theology of Judaism, or Israel, must move away from allosemitism in all its forms, but finds itself challenged to do such a thing.
The first question that is faced, then, is not how Christianity might construct a theology of Judaism as Other (which it is, or there is no difference between Christianity and Judaism and we might as well be one religion) but whether Christianity can theologically conceive of an intimate Other in any form at all. How can the Self form an identity when the Other is not fixed? How does the Self incorporate the Other into its own identity formation, particularly when that Other is a group? How does the Self as a group form its own identity when its own members are at odds and variant with one another? The train of thought proceeds backwards, from a non-supersessionist/anti-jewish/anti-semitic Christian theology to a non-allosemitic theology to one that does not totalize the Other in either construction or definition.