On Wednesday, Sept. 11, the Hertiage conference room on the fourth floor of the Homer Babbidge Library filled with listeners ready to hear a presentation by PhD candidate Joscha Valentin Jelitzki. Hosted by the University of Connecticut’s Humanities Institute, the focus of the presentation was on Jelitzki’s research titled, “Rethinking Vienna: Jewish Difference, the Evil Inclination, and the Study of Culture.” His work provides a colorful and detailed perspective on Jewish life and culture in 20th-century Vienna. A response from Associate Professor of History and Women’s Gender, and Sexuality Studies at George Washington University, Sara Matthiesen, followed.
Jelitzki has a background in German Jewish literature and is pursuing a PhD in the University of Connecticut’s Department of Literatures, Cultures, and Languages. He has also studied in Berlin, Frankfurt and Jerusalem. More information about his academic career can be found on the UConn Events Calendar.
To begin his presentation, Jelitzki explained the question at the heart of his work: How can research approach a cultural period such as the 20th century, and focus on Jewish perspectives when many Jewish artists produced secular works?
Jelitzki’s work dives deep into that question, focusing in particular on “drive” and sexual desires, especially in the concept of the “Yetzer Hara.” This impulse was a common link throughout Jelitzki’s sources and it proved to be a lens through which to analyze the Jewish culture of 20th century Vienna. To do so, he introduced five frameworks through which he examined the available historical sources.
The first was the Gombrich hypothesis, bearing the name of art historian Ernst Gombrich, born in Vienna. Gombrich escaped the city in the pre-war 1930s, and later went on to a career in academia. In 1996, Gombrich was invited to speak on Jewish culture in Vienna, but he refused, taking the stance that isolating artists because they were Jewish was backstepping on post-war progress towards equality. Conscious of this dilemma, Jelitzki reflected on the ways the categories of Jewish and non-Jewish were relevant in the historical context.
The next framework, the antisemitism hypothesis, relies on the sociopolitical trends of the 20th century towards the hatred and sub-humanization of Jewish peoples across Europe and much of the world. Jelitzki took the stance that his sources did not have any direct references to antisemitism, however, as follow-up speaker Matthiesen noted (and Jelitzki agreed), there are many ways in which antisemitism can be hidden yet present, and both noted that it affected every Jew, even those who didn’t identify as one. For instance, in the increased number of Jewish Marxists during the 1920s, suggesting a countermovement to other political forces.
The third framework, called the Beller hypothesis, comes from a 1989 book by Steven Beller, “Vienna and the Jews, 1867 – 1938: A Cultural History.” The book was the first attempt at a “quantitative” look at “Vienna’s Jewry” according to Jelitzki. Beller notes that the Jews were a separate social entity, belonging to a class which they built. Jelitzki noted statistics and other percentages which were useful to him during his research on the demographic makeup of Viennese Jews.
Next, the Rozenblit hypothesis constructs an approach revolving around a “Jewish social universe.” It relies upon the evidence that Jews tended to live with Jews, and that a “rich network of organizations” allowed for Jews to “reassert their Jewish identity.”
Last, yet perhaps the hypothesis that sparked the most discussion, was the Silverman hypothesis, based upon Lisa Silverman’s work on the “critical theory of Jewish difference.” Outlined in her paper, “Beyond Antisemitism: A Critical Approach to German Jewish Cultural History,” Silverman applied social-constructionist perspectives on the concept of being Jewish or non-Jewish. While the terminology is still missing for a full perspective on Jewish identity in this respect, the concept of sexual passions and identity, as is the focus of Jelitzki’s work, tied into many aspects of this theory.
With the five hypotheses set up, Jelitzki next explored the Yetzer, examining its historical appearances and its general ambiguity, noting that it can be attributed as “evil, good, or without attributes.”
Generally, the Yetzer is a drive, typically in a young male, which urges them to engage in illicit sexual acts. There are many varied explanations of the concept, and its use and meaning changes over time. However, that is what makes it a great basis for research like Jelitzki’s.
With sources ranging from Max Brod to connections with Yiddish translations of Sigmund Freud’s work, Jelitzki had plentiful and varied sources from which he frequently pulled quotes and evidence to support his analyses.
While the full depth of Jelitzki’s research cannot all be contained in one article, he received an applause upon wrapping up his statements, and Matthiesen noted that she was “excited to see where the work goes next.”
Matthiesen commented on the politics of Vienna and the possible effects that Red Vienna, a period of socialist political dominance of the city, may have had on Jelitzki’s sources. She also noted the significance of Silverman’s work, and in response, Jelitzki commented, “It struck me so hard that I hadn’t noticed it.”
Questions from the audience followed, including an in-depth dialogue on Freud’s role in the history, as well as the implications of Yetzer possibly developing a modern psychological meaning.
The talk concluded with light food and continued dialogue between the audience and speakers. Upcoming events include a talk on the role of the humanities in loneliness, on Oct. 1. UCHI Fellow’s Talks continue every Wednesday, with a full schedule available at: humanities.uconn.edu/news-and-events/