We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
My old friend Daniel Boyarin has raised, not for the first time, the problem of whether one can imagine what he calls “an ethical form of Jewish collective continuity.” He strikes out against the notion of such a “Jewish” ethical continuity seeing it having been negated in the present discussion, the negation driven by two arguments, “[Christian] supersessionism” on the right and “territorial nationalism” on the left. Whether it is possible “to inform prejudice against collective Jewish continuity is perhaps mitigated when Jews per se are obviously the objects of collective discrimination, and correspondingly exacerbated when Jews as a collective appear to be ‘powerful’ or ‘secure.’” Anti-Semitism or the “model minority.”
KAFKA—OR PERHAPS BETTER, Kafkas, those multiple readings of the works and life of Franz Kafka—have become an industry. One of Kafka's English-language editors, the philosopher Hannah Arendt, wrote to the publisher Salman Schocken on August 9, 1946: “Though during his lifetime he could not make a decent living, he will now keep generations of intellectuals both gainfully employed and well-fed.” Yet it was not only academics, like the present writer and his colleagues, who live off of the bones, but ironically also Anglophone poets. For what is odd about Franz Kafka is … that he seemed to have had no ear for poetry. He writes prose of every genre we can imagine (and invents some); poor plays; journalism and technical writing; BUT he does not write poetry. His fragmentary poetic juvenilia are just as embarrassing as all of ours would be. And yet he inspires poets. At least those writing in English following Edmund Wilson's New Yorker critical comparison of Kafka with Gogol and Poe: “He is quite true to his time and place, but it is surely a time and place in which few of us will want to linger.” The Kafka craze hit English-language poets especially after World War II, in a Britain celebrating a new age in the Festival of Britain (1951) as well as in Eisenhower's conservative America, the America of Sloan Wilson's The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit (1956).
One simple reason for this powerful identification is that his work seems to have been prefigured in American poetry by another writer who spent his life working for an insurance agency, though much more successfully. Kafka, who worked at private and state insurance agencies in Prague, has been read as a prophet of the collapse of civilization into the banalities and destruction of modernity. This view was shared by other Anglophone writers of the 1920s, especially Americans abroad such as Ezra Pound and his friend Tom Eliot. As Kafka was approaching the end of his life, dying slowly of laryngeal tuberculosis in a sanatorium on the outskirts of Vienna in 1924, a young insurance executive was beginning his poetic career in Hartford, Connecticut (almost as peripheral as was Kafka's Prague).
In their critical paper on images in the health sciences, Roger Cooter and Claudia Stein pointed out the limits of visualisation and representation in the existing literature in the public representation of health and illness. They focus on the complex and multilayered field of medical representations as the site where levels of epistemic, philosophical and political presuppositions provide insight into the interpreter's historical position. From a close focus on medical (or even public health) representations as a reflection of a partial worldview, to the historical embeddedness that they suggest is the key to understanding the limitations of all visual hermeneutics in the sphere of health and illness:
The debate about “happiness” was a central question of nineteenth-century German thought. That Jews in Germany also engaged in this debate is of little surprise. That “Jewish” psychoanalysts and cosmetic surgeons during the long turn-of-the-century reflected a “Jewish” turn only means that they provided alternatives to the question of how or whether one can truly become happy.
HAPPINESS IS A “peculiarly modern, Western idea,” as Richard Sennett has observed. Actually happiness is multiple, conflicting ideas — often changing from context to context with each change presaging a cascade of different meanings and interpretations. In this essay I shall try to link a number of them in a manner that is not causal but I hope rather evocative. I want to begin with a specific “Jewish” turn in the history of the concept of happiness at the close of the nineteenth century (one that turns out not to be very “Jewish” in its origin) and conclude with some thoughts on Michael Jackson and our need to understand happiness in the twenty-first century.
The close of the nineteenth century was for European — especially for German — Jews the best of times and the worst of times. Civil emancipation, increased economic and social mobility, and access to secular education were all balanced by the rise of political antisemitism (which desired to reverse civil emancipation) and the reappearance of anti-Semitism in the form of the “blood libel.” Political realities in the Russian Empire led to massive pogroms and the flight of millions of Eastern European and mostly unacculturated Jews westward to settle in the cities of Western Europe and beyond. Yet these political realities also led to a wide-ranging Jewish response, from Zionism to Jewish political parties (at least in the Austro-Hungarian Empire). This snap-shot is both reductive and crude — but it outlines a brutal contradiction in the mental lives of Jewish intellectuals. For them, happiness was a complex and very “un-Jewish” thing. Kaufmann Kohler’s comment on the meaning of happiness in the Talmud applies very much to the age in which he himself wrote: “The sad present contrasted with the past made the lot of the people seem hard and cruel. Besides the loss of political freedom, the disappointment of Messianic hopes made life dreary.