Sebastian Neubauer (Free University Berlin, Germany ... - jusmenacu

Congreso Internacional
“PODER SER DIFERENTE SIN TEMOR”:
ANTISEMITISMO Y EXCLUSIÓN,
AYER Y HOY
7-9 marzo 2012
Proyecto de Investigación
«Filosofía después del Holocausto:
Vigencia de sus lógicas perversas»
Centro de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales-CSIC
(Madrid)
Sebastian Neubauer
(Free University Berlin,
Germany)
sneu@zedat.fu-berlin.de
International Congress
“BEING DIFFERENT WITHOUT FEAR”:
ANTISEMITISM AND EXCLUSION,
THEN AND NOW
March 7 to 9, 2012
Research Project
“Philosophy after the Holocaust:
Validity of its Perverse Logics”
Center for Human and Social Sciences-CSIC
(Madrid)
Elements of a Critical
Theory of Zionism. The
Jewish State, the
disastrous history and the
changing functionality of
Antisemitism in the
thought of Max
Horkheimer
Max Horkheimer‟s theory of Antisemitism, most notably expressed in the „Elements of a theory
of Antisemitism‟ section of the „Dialectic of Enlightenment‟ (Horkheimer/Adorno 1988), has well
made its way into academic discourse. The same is true for Horkheimer‟s - whose thought has
often been understood as particularly Jewish Political Thought [Barboza 2009; Rosen 2009] -
connected and constant attempt to analyze the role of Jews and Judaism in Continental
Philosophy and History (Reichmann 1974). However, I intend to open up a radically different
perspective on Horkheimer‟s Theory of Judaism and thereby on - the Functionality of - Anti-
Semitism. My approach specifically grounds in Horkheimer‟s scattered, fragmentary and
unfortunately often disregarded so called „Spätwerk’ - his later, mostly posthumously published
writings from the period after his return to Frankfurt. In the following, I intend to show that
Horkheimer‟s thought of this period is essentially guided by an implicit theory of Zionism - or
rather, to speak in Horkheimer‟s own language, by „Elements of a Critical Theory of Zionism‟. I
argue, that precisely Horkheimer‟s account of Zionism provides us with worthy and innovative
insights into the internal dynamics of his late thought. Building on this, I further argue, that
Horkheimer thereby provides us with an implicit theoretical approach to - the Functionality of -
„Anti-Semitism‟ in socio-political modernity. Although there is a broad textual basis in the work of
Horkheimer (Horkheimer 1960; 1967; 1968a; 1968b; 1969b; 1969c; 1970b; 1974; 1988a;

1988b; 1988c), the significance of the issue of Zionism and the Jewish State for the latter‟s
thought has so far neither been acknowledged - let alone analyzed - by academic work on
Horkheimer, nor is his voice to be encountered in contemporary critical discourses on Zionism
(Brumlik 2007).
In the following, I aim, first, to approach the late Horkheimer as a Jewish Political Thinker,
thereby elaborating his „Elements of a Critical Theory of Zionism‟. Building on this, I intend,
second, to highlight the significance and over-arching character of the account of Zionism for the
internal dynamics of the late Horkheimer‟s thought. My goal is to show, how these „Elements‟ are
essentially interwoven with Horkheimer‟s Philosophy of History, his analysis of the (back then)
contemporary socio-political world and of utmost importance his conception of Critical Theory as
such. Thereby I argue, Horkheimer‟s so far disregarded account of Zionism can serve as a foil, a
prism, for re-sorting and re-understanding his late thought. By following this line of argument, I
finally argue, that in the last instance Horkheimer‟s account of Zionism bridges into a significantly
re-shaped theory of „Anti-Semitism‟. Thereby, I hope to demonstrate that in the advent of Zionism
the notion of „Functionality‟ radically changes, as Horkheimer leaves the Jews behind. Thus, we
can understand from Horkheimer‟s argument that the „anti-Semitic‟ logic of identity and violence
becomes the sole and entire logic of the perpetuated „disastrous history‟ itself.
First: Horkheimer’s Elements of a Critical Theory of Zionism
It is well known, that Horkheimer‟s life and thought was highly influenced by his personal and
philosophical background in Judaism (Altwickler 2009; Baboza 2009; Ehrlich 2009: Reichmann
2004). A fact that is, of course, more true for his last two decades, than for his previous life. Max
Horkheimer conceived his particularly Jewish identity throughout his entire life as crucial
(Horkheimer 1970b). Accordingly, his biographer Zvi Rosen has shown that Horkheimer‟s
philosophical work in general has been influenced by two major sources: The „German tradition‟
on the one hand and the „Jewish tradition‟ on the other hand (Rosen 2006: 36ff.).
For Horkheimer himself, being Jewish essentially meant to live „in der Erwartung, dass es
einmal in der Welt noch gut wird“ 1 (Horkheimer 1968a: 210). This expectation, which he himself
traced back to his own personal and philosophical Jewish background, is - of course - deeply
reflected throughout his Philosophy. Since Critical Theory - being decisively understood as the
critique of the existing conditions of life - gains, in the last instance, its validity from the
imagination that one day the world could change towards the better, that there might be
something radically „other to-come‟. Therefore, this „other‟, Horkheimer used to call it „das ganz
Andere” 2 (1977b), has to be understood as the utmost core of Horkheimer‟s over-all thought.
This „other‟ is conceived by Horkheimer as being expressed by a number of traits of the Jewish
tradition, which he therefore describes as a “geistige Realität” (Horkheimer 1988c: 331), a
“spiritual reality”. Of particular importance among these traits is the Jewish focus on this world
only as well as the connected Jewish concept of Messianism. Since Judaism does, as Horkheimer
argues, „not know an afterlife“ (Horkheimer 1968a: 210), it aims solely to improve this life,
meaning the life of the entire Jewry and of the generations to-come (1988c: 401/402). This focus
on this world gains, in Horkheimer‟s thought, its particular importance in its connection with the
Jewish conception of Messianism. Horkheimer interprets the latter as expressing the general
quality of „the other to-come‟, which should be, according to the Jewish logic, not be restricted to
1 In the expectation, that the world might one day change towards the better.
2 The radical other.

the Jewish people, but expanded to the entire humanity itself: „Ihr Messias soll nicht nur Israel,
sondern alle Völker erlösen.“ 3 (1988c: 410)
Interestingly enough, Horkheimer conceives this fundamental imagination of the „other‟, the
„spirtiual reality‟ of Judaism as being socially sublated and materialized in the Jewish diaspora.
This „other‟ is, according to Horkheimer, real, since it has its social and historical space in the
material existence of the Jewish diaspora. This interconnection grounds, for Horkheimer, in the
very special social situation of the European Jewry. Horkheimer argues that the eternal suffering
und the never-ending threat the European Jews were exposed to, resulted in a social maintenance
of this „other‟, which itself derives from the Jewish tradition as such:
“Durch Jahrtausende haben die Juden in den Verfolgungen um der Gerechtigkeit willen
zusammengehalten. Ihre Riten [...] waren Momente des Zusammenhalts, der Kontinuität.
Kein Machtstaat, sondern die Hoffnung auf Gerechtigkeit am Ende der Welt hieß
Judentum. Sie waren ein Volk und das Gegenteil, der Vorwurf aller Völker.“ 4 (1974: 369)
This notion of the Jewish diaspora gains, according to Horkheimer, its crucial historical
momentum, after the international workers movement, which had also aimed such a change
towards the „other‟, has been fallen apart. After the historical defeat of the international workers
movement, in Horkheimer‟s view, the Jewish diaspora appears as the last remnant of the „other‟
within the disastrous history. Thus, the diaspora occupies, in Horkheimer‟s thought, the historical
space of the last weak and vulnerable but nevertheless remaining anti-dote to the disastrous
dialectic of history: „Selbst die Vorstellung der Möglichkeit dieses ‚Anderen„ verschwindet 5 “
(1970b: 433).
In the given context it is of particular interest, that Horkheimer blames the historic defeat of
the workers movement on a fact, which he calls „Marx hat die Juden verraten“ 6 (1988b: 351).
Thereby, Horkheimer argues, that Marx‟ Philosophy had failed to expand the ‚spiritual reality„ of
Judaism on the entire society, since it narrowed the general solidarity on the particularity of the
proletariat, subsequently causing the historic defeat of the workers movement.
At this point it should be clear that Judaism conceived as a „spiritual reality‟ sublating „the
other to-come‟ is truly essential for the thought of the late Horkheimer. However, regarding the
fact that Horkheimer connects, as I indicated, this notion of Judaism very strongly to the material
existence of the diaspora, the question opens up, how the advent of Zionism and the Creation of
the State of Israel, which aims per definition for the negation of the diaspora, intervenes into this
line of thought?
First of all, it is very noteworthy that Horkheimer, who has been very much engaged for the
sake of diasporic Judaism, both in the US and in post-war Germany, has been, from the very
beginnings on, somewhat distanced towards Zionism and Zionist Organizations. Despite their
high influence in pre-war Germany, Horkheimer has, as far as we know, never been in touch with
Zionist youth movements. Furthermore, Horkheimer‟s focus on the diaspora is demonstrated by
the fact, that as early as in 1944 Horkheimer started to worry that within the American Public,
Judaism could become identified with Zionism. This, of course was the Zionists political goal,
whereas Horkheimer feared that precisely these Zionist Politics could contribute to „anti-Semitic‟
resentments within the American Public and weakening the position of the diaspora (Jay 1976:
3 The Jewish Messiah shall redeem not only the people of Israel, but all people of the world.
4 Throughout millennia, the Jews have resisted their persecution for the sake of Justice. Their religious rites […]
were moments of community, of continuity. Not a nation-state based on power, but the desire for justice at the end of
the world was called Judaism. They were a people and its opposite, the accusation of all people.
5 Even the mere imagination of the possibility of this other tends to disappear.
6 Marx betrayed the Jews.

393). This issue was apparently of such crucial importance for Horkheimer, that he intended to
conduct broad sociological research on it. However, the planned project, never materialized due to
a lack of financial means and the changing political situation after the end of the World War
(Rabinbach 2009: 253).
This Horkheimerian particular focus on the diaspora is underlined by the fact that within his
broad correspondence, Horkheimer does not devote a single word to the foundation of the State of
Israel in 1948. However, from the 1950s on we can observe a radical change in Horkheimer‟s
attention. This shift grounds, for my understanding, first, on the fact that Horkheimer started to
realize that the Zionist enterprise succeeds and that it will therefore have a significant impact on
the crucial diaspora, and, second, on the fact that the young state of Israel appeared to be
vulnerably caught in a very precarious political situation. Thus, we can find from this point on,
within the work of Horkheimer, a very strong publicly displayed political solidarity with Israel as
well as a highly critical theorization of the Zionist enterprise, which he kept for the very same
political reasons privately.
Starting with Horkheimer‟s political solidarity, we can conclude that Horkheimer, who himself
never travelled to Israel, displayed this strong political solidarity since the Jewish state provided a
safe haven for endangered Jewish individuals. For instance, Horkheimer himself told in a late
interview: „Man hat daher Israel zu bejahen. Für mich ist entscheidend: Israel ist das Asyl für viele
Menschen.“ 7 (1970b: 398) Horkheimer‟s political solidarity with Israel was further bolstered, since
the Jewish State was a very small and, thus, powerless political entity, which could, as Horkheimer
apparently thought, easily sink in the modern „ocean of violence“ (1968c: 19).
However, underneath this publicly displayed political solidarity, Horkheimer developed from
the 1950s on a very unique and powerful dialectical criticism of the Zionist enterprise, which
should, as I argue, finally essentially re-shape his entire thought. These „Elements of a Critical
Theory of Zionism‟ are very much connected to the core position, outlined above, which
Horkheimer attributes to diasporic Judaism conceived as a „spiritual reality‟ sublating the historical
possibility for „the other to-come‟. Therefore, at the bottom-line of Horkheimer‟s critique of
Zionism appears the argument, that the success of the Zionist movement equals the autoliquidation
of the diaspora and, thus, of the „spiritual reality‟ Judaism:
„Das Symbol der Krise, in der das Judentum heute sich befindet, ist die durch
Verfolgungen bedingte Entstehung Israels, die Rettung jüdischer Menschen, die, nicht
unwahrscheinlich, das Ende des Judentums im geistigen Sinn vorhersehen läßt. Eine
schlechte, aber für die Gegenwart kennzeichnende Dialektik.“ (1985-1996, Band 18:
643) 8
In this line of argument, Horkheimer stresses that the dissolution of Judaism into a Nation
equals the transformation of the power-less into competitors on power. However, according to
Horkheimer, the „spiritual reality‟ materialized in the diaspora, precisely since the Jews were
power-less. Thus, the diasporic Jews could be the historical representatives of „the other to-come‟.
However, by the advent of Zionism, this social position and thus the historical possibility of the
„other‟ appears as being destructed forever:
„Das jüdische Volk war nicht nationalistisch, es trug seine Leiden für die Menschheit. Israel
hingegen ist eine Nation geworden, im Grunde strukturiert wie jede andere, und der
7 We do have to support Israel. For me personally it is crucial, that Israel provides asylum for many individuals.
8 The creation of Israel, which took place due to the persecution and in order to rescue Jewish individuals, is the
symbol of the current crisis of Judaism. However, this crisis points towards the end of the „spiritual reality‟ of Judaism.
It is a worse dialectic, nevertheless characteristic for our age

ursprüngliche messianische Gedanke hat der Selbsterhaltung der eigenen nationalen
Existenz weichen müssen.“ 9 (1988c: 326)
In a note entitled ‚Staat Israel„ Horkheimer further states:
„Jetzt beansprucht ein Staat, fürs Judentum zu sprechen, das Judentum zu sein. Das
jüdische Volk, an dem das Unrecht aller Völker zur Anklage geworden, ist […] nun selber
positiv geworden. Nation unter Nationen, Soldaten, Führer, money-raisers für sich selbst.
[...] Wie hat es [das Judentum] doch im Triumph seines zeitlichen Erfolges im Grunde
resigniert! Es bezahlt sein Fortbestehen mit dem Tribut ans Gesetz der Welt, wie sie ist.
Wenn es auch Hebräisch zur Sprache hat, es ist die des Erfolges, nicht die der Propheten.
Es hat sich dem Zustand der Welt assimiliert. Wer von Schuld sich frei weiß, werfe den
ersten Stein. Nur - es ist schade, durch solchen Verzicht kommt eben das aus der Welt,
was sich durch ihn erhalten sollte.“ 10 (1974: 369)
According, to this harsh critique of Zionism, Horkheimer polemically writes about modern
Jewry: „Die modernen Juden haben das Höhere aufgegeben, um das Niedere zu akzeptieren.“ 11
(1988c: 332). The force of Horkheimer‟s critique of Zionism is probably most noteworthy
displayed in the following passage of an early draft of ‚Zur Ergreifung Eichmanns„, which was later
removed from the final version due to Adorno‟s intervention:
„Was immer Eichmann in Israel geschehen wird, beweist die Ohnmacht, nicht die Macht
der ihrer selbst und ihres Rechts bewussten Juden, die Anmaßung, nicht die Gewohnheit
der staatlichen Autorität in Israel. Jeder weiß, dass man die totalitären Allüren, die an
Benito und die Russen gemahnen, den Israelis im Hinblick auf New York noch einmal
hingehen ließ.“ 12 (1974: 348)
From these words, explicitly comparing the State of Israel with Stalin‟s totalitarian Sowjet
Union and Mussolini‟s Italy, we can understand, that Horkheimer was truly and deeply concerned
with the Zionist enterprise and its success.
Before I go on to examine these concerns, it has to be added, that Horkheimer, of course,
thinks the issue of Zionism dialectically. In his view, not the Jews are to be blamed for the fatal
transformation of the diaspora, which sublated the „other‟, into a Nation-State which becomes like
everything else and thus annihilates the last remaining historical possibility of the „other‟. To the
contrary, Horkheimer perceives the creation of the Jewish State as a result of the disastrous history
itself, as being without alternative in order to provide a safe haven for persecuted Jewish
individuals:
9 The Jewish people were not nationalistic at all, they were suffering for the sake of all Humanity. Israel, to the
contrary, is a nation-state, at its basis structured like all others. Thus, the original messianic thought had to vanish for
the sake of national existence.
10 In nowadays a State claims to speak for Judaism, to be itself Judaism. The Jewish people, who used to be the
accusation of all people, have themselves become positive. Nation among nations, soliders, leaders, money-raisers for
themselves. […] How has Judaism, in fact, resigned in the face of its temporal triumph! Judaism pays for its ongoing
existence by accommodating to the world as it is. Although Hebrew is the language of Israel, it is the language of
success and not the language of the prophets. Judaism has itself assimilated to the existing state of the world. The one
who is free of guilt, shall throw the first rock. Just, it is sad, since by means of this sacrifice, the other vanishes from
the world, which actually should be preserved through it.
11 The modern Jews gave up the better, the other, in order to accept the existing, the worse.
12 Whatever will happen to Eichmann in Israel, it demonstrates the lack of power and not the power of the selfconscious
Jews. It demonstrates the pretension and not the practice of the authority of the State of Israel. Everyone
knows that Israel‟s totalitarian affectations, which recall Benito and the Russians, were tolerated this time only with
respect to New York.

„Um sich zu retten hatten sie die Alternative, ihren Gott zu verleugnen oder sich als Staat
zu konstituieren. Beides bedeutet den Untergang des Judentums: das erste das
Verschwinden aus der Welt, das zweite den Umschlag in den unvermeidlichen
Nationalismus der anderen: Israel.“ 13 (1988b: 314)
Second: The account of Zionism as a prism for understanding the thought of the late
Horkheimer
Building on the outlined Horkheimerian view, that the success of the Zionist enterprise equals
the liquidation of Judaism as „spiritual reality‟ and thus of the last remnant of the „other‟ in the
disastrous history, I would like to explore in the following the far-reaching consequences of this
argument for Horkheimer‟s over-all thought, before focusing in the last section of my presentation
on the issue of „Anti-Semitism‟.
Very basically, Horkheimer conceived the fatal but nevertheless alternative-less success of the
Zionist enterprise as the disastrous history coming to itself, as the closing point for the possibility
to transform the ever-ongoing pre-history into real history. Thus, the materialization of Zionism in
the shape of the Jewish State necessarily appears, in Horkheimer, as the eternal perpetuation of the
„disastrous history‟, and is therefore characterized as the “darkest aspect of all history”: „Es ist der
trübste Aspekt der Geschichte, […] der trübste sowohl für das Judentum wie für Europa, dass der
Zionismus recht behielt.“ 14 (1961a: 166/167)
This tragic but unavoidable loss of the social and historical possibility of the „other‟, the better,
has, in Horkheimer‟s view, far reaching consequences for the possibility of Philosophy and of
Critical Theory in general. If we recall, that Horkheimer conceives the imagination of the „other‟,
the better as the core of all Philosophy, as providing, in the last instance, validity to the entire
project, we can imagine the consequences that he perceives in facing this fatal tragedy, called the
success of Zionism. In a note entitled „Ausgeträumt„, Horkheimer expresses in a very condensed
way his view on the interconnection of Judaism, the disastrous history, the success of Zionism and
the consequences of this entire historical development for the possibility of Critical Theory, of
Philosophy as such:
„Der Traum vom Messias, des Anbruchs der Gerechtigkeit auf Erden, der in der Diaspora
die Juden zusammenhält, ist ausgeträumt. Er hat unendlich viele Märtyrer gefunden,
unendliches Leid verursacht und Hoffnung gewährt. Jetzt sind die Verfolgten ohne Messias
nach Zion gezogen, haben wie andere Völker ihre Nation und ihren Nationalismus
etabliert, und das Judentum wurde zur bloßen Religion. Die in der Diaspora verbleiben,
können sich entscheiden; sei es für Israel, für die Auflösung in der Nation […] oder sie
müssen als Juden provinziell werden, romantische Sektierer ohne geschichtliche Substanz.
Die Diaspora ist eine Hinterwelt. Die Juden sind Überbleibsel. [...] Wer an die kritische
Theorie sich hält, kann für eine […] Form des Nationalismus sich entscheiden, den
sogenannten kommunistischen […], oder provinziell werden, romantischer Sektierer. Das
Reich der Freiheit ist eine Hinterwelt. Die zur Theorie halten, sind Überbleibsel wie die
Getreuen des Talmud und des messianischen Vertrauens.“ 15 (1974: 392)
13 In order to rescue themselves, they had the alternative either to repudiate their God or to become a Nationstate.
Both means the decay of Judaism: The former vanishing from the world, the latter the unavoidable
transformation into Nationalism: Israel.
14 It is the darkest aspect of all history, the darkest for both Judaism and Europe, that Zionism was proven to be
right.
15 The dream of the Messiah, of eternal justice on earth, which had given community to the Jews in the diaspora,
has come to an end. This dream has led to uncounted numbers of martyrs, it had caused eternal suffering and at the
same time given eternal hope. Now the persecuted went to Zion without Messiah. They have established their Nation
and their Nationalism like all other people, whereas Judaism itself degraded to be a mere religion. The ones, who

If we pay close attention to these few sentences, we may recognize something truly remarkable.
Horkheimer argues that in the Zionist age, of course, promoted by the disastrous history itself,
Critical Theory, Philosophy in general becomes “backwardness”, loses its connection to History, its
social space, and therefore its over-all social meaning. For Horkheimer, in the Zionist age, the
Critical Theorists become ‚romantic sectarians„. Their time has forever passed, since with the
diaspora also the social space, the historical sublation of the imagination and thus the historical
possibility of the „other‟ has forever vanished.
Facing this general loss of possibility, of social meaning, Horkheimer‟s critique of Zionism
transforms itself into a critique of mourning, which again transforms the position of Critical
Theorists in the light of the inevitable triumph of Zionism into a position of, speaking polemically,
professional mourning:
„Dem kann ich nicht widersprechen, aber auch der Trauer mich nicht erwehren, dass es der
Wiederholung des Zugs ins Heilige Land ohne den Anbruch der richtigen Zeit bedurfte.“ 16
(Horkheimer 1974: 380/381)
Third: A theory of the (Functionality) of Anti-Semitism in the Zionist Age
So far, I have highlighted the over-arching position of the issue of Zionism for the thought of
late Horkheimer as well as Zionism‟s manifold implications for understanding core topics of his
work. Although, this field is still open for further research, I indicated that Horkheimer‟s
reflections on Zionism may serve as a prism for reading and re-acquiring his scattered and,
unfortunately, often disregarded „Spätwerk‟. However, in the given context the implications of
Horkheimer‟s account of Zionism are particularly striking regarding the theory of Anti-Semitism
and the latter‟s functionality. Accordingly, I would like to, first, explore what, according to
Horkheimer, „Anti-Semitism‟ could mean after the historical disappearance of Judaism and,
second, I would like to outline a Horkheimerian theory of „Anti-Semitism‟ in the Zionist age.
Of course, also in Horkheimer‟s thought, „Anti-Semitism‟ is not necessarily connected to the
meaning of Judaism as such. However, in a late note entitled „Zum Antisemitismus‟, Horkheimer
argues that the Jews of the diaspora became the object of hate and persecution, since they were the
physical representatives of the „other‟, the „better‟. He writes, that the Jews„ mere existance is “ein
Stein des Anstoßes [weil] sie sich dem Absoluten nicht in toto unterwerfen.“ 17 While being
exposed to all this persecution, the Jews - recurring to their tradition - reacted without power by
preserving the „other‟, the better, among their own threatened community. This Horkheimerian
view may rightly be called romantic. Nevertheless, in Horkheimer‟s thought, the outlined
„dialectic‟ maintained throughout history the social and historical possibility of the „other to-come‟.
From this argument it is possible to deduce a double-fold „functionality‟ of „Anti-Semitism‟. On
the one hand, its function appears to be as giving way to violent regression since Anti-Semitism is
conceived as the „inverted‟ wish of the repressed individuals for change towards the „other‟. On the
other hand, somewhat cynically, „Anti-Semitism‟ appears to be historically functional, since it,
despite all involved cruelty, maintained a „dialectic‟ sublating and preserving the „other‟ within
history and society.
remain in the diaspora, can decide either for Israel, which means the dissolution into a nation, or they can maintain
Judaism, which means becoming provincial, becoming romantic sectarians that lack historical substance. Today, the
diaspora is backwardness. The Jews are remnants. The one who remains faithful in Critical Theory can opt for a way of
nationalism, the so called communism or he can become provincial, a romantic sectarian. The realm of freedom has
become backwardness. The ones, who remain faithful in Critical Theory, are last, out-dated, remnants like the faithful
Jews.
16 I have nothing to oppose, but I do have to mourn, that the repetition of the return to the holy land had taken
place before its time had come.
17 The thorn in our side, since they refuse to completely subjugate to the absolute.

However, in Horkheimer‟s view, precisely this „dialectic‟ comes with the advent of Zionism to a
tragic end; by the destruction of the „diaspora‟ and its transformation into a power seeking
Nationalism, this entire „dialectic‟ vanisehs forever. First of all, this historical movement comes
down to the fact, that „conventional‟ Anti-Semitism, understood in the sense outlined above,
vanishes, too. Since the „other‟ is no longer sublated within Judaism, Jews couldn‟t be hated any
more for representing precisely this „other‟. However, social repression, the individuals „inverted‟
wish for changing towards the „other‟, their hate on this „other‟, does not vanish with its historical
possibility. To the contrary, if Zionism - the specific Jewish response to Anti-Semitism - appears as
the „auto-liquidation‟ of Judaism and thereby as the eternal perpetuation of the disastrous history,
the social hate on the „other‟, now including Jews as well, seems to be eternally perpetuated, too.
Thus, I finally argue, that we can - if we pay attention to Horkheimer‟s „Elements of a Critical
Theory of Zionism‟ - gain hold on the corner-stone of a theory of socio-political Modernity. We
find here a theory of socio-political Modernity, in which „Anti-Semitism‟, the hate of the „other‟
understood as the inverted wish to achieve it, is no longer functional. To the contrary, the entire
world functions in the light of this - rather pessimistic - argument, so to speak, purely „anti-
Semitic‟ - it is not only guided by logics of identity and violence, but in which the logics of identity
and violence have become universal and, thus, reality itself. As late Horkheimer writes: „Der Gang
der Geschichte tendiert auf automatische Reaktion, auf Uniformität, die über terroristische
Perioden sich durchsetzen muss.“ 18 (1988a: 139)
Bibliography
Altwicker, Norbert 2009: Loeb-Lectures. Gastvorlesungen über Geschichte, Philosophie und
Religion des Judentums an der Universität Frankfurt am Main 1956-1957, in: Boll/Gross
2009: 158-161.
Bayer, Oswald 1995: Die Furcht, dass es Gott nicht gebe. Zum Judentum in der Philosophie Max
Horkheimers, in: Lucas, Franz D. (Hg): Geschichte und Geist. Fünf Essays zum
Verständnis des Judentums. Berlin: Duncker und Humblot: 35-54.
Barboza, Amalia 2009: Die ‚Jüdische Identität„ der Frankfurter Schule, in: Boll/Gross 2009: 162 -
169
Boll, Monika / Gross, Ralph 2009: Die Frankfurter Schule und Frankfurt. Eine Rückkehr nach
Deutschland, Frankfurt am Main: Wallenstein.
Brumlik, Micha 2007: Kritik des Zionismus, Hamburg: Europäische Verlagsanstalt.
Ehrlich, Ernst Ludwig 2009: Von Hiob zu Horkheimer. Gesammelte Schriften zum Judentum und
seiner Umwelt, Berlin: De Gruyter.
Freimüller, Tobias 2009: Max Horkheimer und die jüdische Gemeinde Frankfurt am Main nach
1945, in: Boll/Gross 2009: 150 - 157.
Grigat, Stephan 2006a: Feindaufklärung und Reeducation. Kritische Theorie gegen Postnazismus
und Islamismus, Freiburg: ca-ira.
Grigat, Stephan 2006b: Befreite Gesellschaft und Israel. Zum Verhältnis von Kritischer Theorie
und Zionismus, in Grigat 2006a: 115-129.
Horkheimer, Max 1917: Jochai, in: Horkheimer, Max 1985-1996, Band 1: 264-272.
Horkheimer, Max 1935: Gedanke zur Religion, in: Horkheimer, Max 1985-1996, Band 3: 326-
328.
Horkheimer, Max 1939a: Die Juden und Europa, in: Horkheimer, Max 1985-1996, Band 4: 308-
331.
18 The path of history tends towards automatic reaction, uniformity, which has to materialize through despotic
periods.

Horkheimer, Max 1939b: Jüdischer Charakter, in: Horkheimer, Max 1985-1996, Band 12: 263-
264.
Horkheimer, Max 1944: Antisemitismus: Der soziologische Hintergrund des psychoanalytischen
Forschungsansatzes, in: Horkheimer, Max 1985-1996, Band 5: 364-372.
Horkheimer, Max 1945a: Zur Klassifikation jüdischer Einwanderer, in: Horkheimer, Max 1985-
1996, Band 5: 373-376.
Horkheimer, Max 1945b: Die Juden und der Eid, in: Horkheimer, Max 1985-1996, Band 12:
303-305.
Horkheimer, Max 1960: Zur Ergreifung Eichmanns, in: Horkheimer, Max 1985-1996, Band 8:
156-159.
Horkheimer, Max 1961a: Über die deutschen Juden, in: Horkheimer, Max 1985-1996, Band 8:
160-174.
Horkheimer, Max 1961b: Nachwort [zu Porträts deutsch-jüdischer Geistesgeschichte], in:
Horkheimer, Max 1985-1996, Band 8: 175-193.
Horkheimer, Max 1967: „Liebe deinen Nächsten“ [Nach Gesprächen mit Dagobert Lindlau], in:
Horkheimer, Max 1985-1996, Band 13: 183-187.
Horkheimer, Max 1968c: Vorwort, in: Horkheimer, Max 1985: 7-10.
Horkheimer, Max 1968a: Psalm 91, in: Horkheimer, Max 1985-1996, Band 7: 207-212.
Horkheimer, Max 1968b: Wahrheit im Denken. Aus einer theologischen Diskussion, in:
Horkheimer, Max 1985-1996, Band 13: 101-107.
Horkheimer, Max 1968c: Vorwort zur Neupublikation, in: Horkheimer, Max 1985-1996, Band 3:
14-19.
Horkheimer, Max 1969a: Über den Zweifel, in: Horkheimer, Max 1985-1996, Band 7: 213-223.
Horkheimer, Max 1969b: „Himmel, Ewigkeit und Schönheit.“ Interview zum Tode Theodor W.
Adornos, in: Horkheimer, Max 1985-1996, Band 7: 291-296.
Horkheimer, Max 1969c: Dokumente - Stationen [Gespräch mit Otmar Hersche], in:
Horkheimer, Max 1985-1996, Band 7: 317- 344.
Horkheimer, Max 1970: „Was wir ‚Sinn„ nennen, wird verschwinden.“ [Gespräch mit Georg
Wolff und Helmut Gumnior], in: Horkheimer, Max 1985-1996, Band 7: 345-357.
Horkheimer, Max 1970b: Die Sehnsucht nach dem ganz Anderen [Gespräch mit Helmut
Gumnior], in: Horkheimer, Max 1985-1996, Band 7: 385-404.
Horkheimer, Max 1974: Notizen 1949 - 1969, in: Horkheimer, Max 1985-1996, Band 6: 189-
424.
Horkheimer, Max 1985-1996: Gesammelte Schriften, 19 Bände, Frankfurt a. Main: Fischer.
Horkheimer, Max 1988a: Nachgelassene Notizen 1949 - 1969, in: Horkheimer, Max 1985-1996,
Band 14: 33-144.
Horkheimer, Max 1988b: Verstreute Aufzeichnungen 1950 - 1971, in: Horkheimer, Max 1985-
1996, Band 14: 145-170.
Horkheimer, Max 1988c: Späne. Notizen über Gespräche mit Max Horkheimer, in
unverbindlicher Formulierung aufgeschrieben von Friedrich Pollock, in: Horkheimer, Max
1985-1996, Band 14: 172-548.
Horkheimer, Max / Adorno, Theodor W. 1988: Dialektik der Aufklärung. Philosophische
Fragmente, Frankfurt a. Main: Fischer.
Horkheimer, Max / Adorno, Theodor W.2006: Briefwechsel 1927 - 1969, Band IV: 1950-1969,
Frankfurt a. Main: Suhrkamp.
Jay, Martin 1976: Dialektische Phantasie. Die Geschichte der Frankfurter Schule und des Instituts
für Sozialforschung 1923 1950. Frankfurt a. Main: Fischer.
Löwenthal, Leo 1980: Mitmachen wollte ich nie. Ein autobiographisches Gespräch mit Helmut
Dubiel, Frankfurt a. Main: Suhrkamp.
Maier, Joseph 1986: Jüdisches Erbe aus deutschem Geist, In: Schmidt / Altwickler 1986: 146 -
162.

Maor, Maimon 1981: Max Horkheimer, Berlin: Colloquium.
Marcus, Judith / Tar, Zoltan 1986: The Judaic Element in the Teachings of the Frankfurt School,
In: The Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook 31(1): 339-353.
Pangritz, Andreas 1992: Vom kleiner- und unischtbarwerden der Theologie. Ein Versuch über das
Projekt einer ‚impliziten Theologie‟ bei Barth, Tillich, Bonhoeffer, Benjamin, Horkheimer
und Adorno. Berlin: Freie Universität, Habilitationsschrift.
Rabinbach, Anson: Israel, die Diaspora und das Bilderverbot in der kritischen Theorie, in:
Boll/Gross 2009: 251-263.
Reichmann, Eva G. 1974: Max Horkheimer the Jew: Critical Theory and Beyond, In: The Leo
Baeck Institute Yearbook 19(1): 181-195
Rosen, Zvi 1995: Max Horkheimer, München: Beck.
Rosen, Zvi 2006: Interkulturalität im Denken Max Horkheimers, Nordhausen: Traugott Bautz.
Rosen, Zvi 2009: Über die gesellschaftliche Rolle des Judentums, in: Boll / Gross 2009: 128 - 135.
Schmidt, Alfred / Altwickler, Norbert (Hrsg.) 1986: Max Horkheimer heute: Werk und Wirkung.
Frankfurt a. Main: Fischer.
Schmidt, Alfred 2009: Fortschritt, Skepsis und Hoffnung. Kategorien in der
Geschichtsphilosophie Max Horkheimers, In: Boll / Gross 2009: 96-107
Wegerich, Ulrich 1994: Dialektische Theorie und historische Erfahrung. Zur
Geschichtsphilosophie in der frühen kritischen Theorie Max Horkheimers, Würzburg:
Königshausen & Neumann.
Wiggershaus, Rolf 1988: Die Frankfurter Schule. Geschichte, Theoretische Entwicklung,
Politische Bedeutung, München: DTV.
Wiggershaus, Rolf 1998: Max Horkheimer. Zur Einführung, Hamburg: Junius.
Zuckermann, Moshe (Hg.) 2000a: Theodor W. Adorno - Philosoph des beschädigten Lebens,
Göttingen: Wallstein.
Zuckermann, Moshe 2000b: Kritische Theorie in Israel. Analyse einer Nichtrezeption. In:
Zuckermann 2000a: 9 - 24.