Randi Rashkover, Martin Kavka, eds.. , Liberalism, and Political Theology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2014. vii + 356 pp. $35.00, paper, ISBN 978-0-253-01032-2.

Reviewed by Alexander Kaye

Published on H-Judaic (December, 2015)

Commissioned by Matthew A. Kraus (University of Cincinnati)

Judaism, Liberalism and Political Theology is arguments of the book as a whole, bringing mate‐ a study of a century-long critique of liberalism rial from some of the chapters as illustration. and the role of Judaism in that critique. The vol‐ The term “political theology” is widely used ume is an edited collection comprising thirteen today to refer to the complex relationship be‐ chapters and an extensive introduction by the edi‐ tween religion and politics. Its original sense, tors. The editors have done a remarkable job of however, and the sense with which this book is collecting what could have been a diverse group concerned, is more specifc. A word of back‐ of tangentially connected pieces into a cohesive ground may therefore be helpful. The term was whole. The chapters deal with a host of Jewish coined by Carl Schmitt, a Nazi anti-Semite, in his thinkers, most prominently Baruch Spinoza, Her‐ 1922 essay “Political Theology.” He expanded mann Cohen, Leo Strauss, Hannah Arendt, Walter upon the ideas in that essay in several other Benjamin, Martin Buber, Franz Rosenzweig, and works, most notably his 1926 “The Concept of the Sigmund Freud, as well as representative political Political.” Schmitt’s political theology was a set of theologians, including Carl Schmitt, Erik Peterson, descriptive and prescriptive ideas about the rela‐ Jan Assmann, Slavoj Žižek, Giorgio Agamben, and tionship between religion and politics or, more Alain Badiou. Each chapter stands well on its own properly, God and the state. These ideas were in‐ terms but together the chapters constitute a sus‐ tended as a criticism of the liberal understanding tained argument about the place of Judaism and of politics and law. Liberal thinkers in Weimar Jewish thought in a century of ferce debate be‐ Germany claimed that the authority of the state tween liberalism and its political-theological crit‐ was essentially secular and that both the liberal ics. Rather than present a summary review of the state and its law are, and should be, devoid of chapters, I will provide an overview of the main substantive religious or identitarian content. Thus for Hans Kelsen, a liberal legal positivist, and a H-Net Reviews major target of “Political Theology,” the authority Schmitt and developed by other thinkers over the of the state had to be justifed on its own terms, past century--and Jewish thought. They do so without reference to theology, revelation, or in‐ from two directions. Despite recent “cracks in the deed any kind of metaphysics. marriage between Judaism and liberalism” Schmitt objected to these claims. For him, the (Martin Kavka, 108) represented by militant Jew‐ state was not simply the product of the neutral ish Zionism and the interest in multiculturalism process of law. Rather, it had to be founded on an among some Jewish thinkers like Susannah Hes‐ intense association of its citizens who stood apart chel, the contributors acknowledge that there re‐ from all others, giving rise to what Schmitt called mains a close association between Judaism and the “distinction of friend and enemy.”[1] Further‐ liberalism. Many of the contributors question the more, against liberal claim that the modern state wisdom of this association, “assum[ing] that had left theology behind, Schmitt famously insist‐ Schmitt and others might have been (or actually ed that “[a]ll signifcant concepts of the modern were) correct in pointing out a perhaps fatal theory of the state are secularized theological con‐ weakness or naïveté in the optimism of all liberal‐ cepts.”[2] Modern politics is essentially theological ism, including Jewish theological liberalism” because it has inherited the theological structure (Kavka, 108). At the same time, the nature of the of the premodern period; the omnipotence of God engagement between much of political theology as lawgiver has simply been transferred to the and Judaism remains deeply troubling for reasons omnipotence of the state as lawgiver. With these that I will summarize below. This book, then, at‐ arguments, Schmitt’s “political theology” attempt‐ tempts to lay out new possibilities of political dis‐ ed to invert Spinoza’s Theological Political Trea‐ course based on a serious engagement with both tise (1670), one of the foundational documents of Jewish thought and political theology that avoids that strand of the Enlightenment that sought to es‐ the anti-Jewish bias implicit (or explicit) in much tablish a secular basis for modern politics. political theology on the one hand, and the refex‐ ive association of Judaism and liberalism on the This debate was not purely theoretical, of other. The hope of the editors is that this will en‐ course. At stake was the question of the relation‐ rich both political theology and Jewish thought. ship of the state to its citizens and to the rule of law. Whereas for Kelsen the state has no authority The book has two major arguments. First, it outside of the legal processes that constitute it, for argues that the association between Judaism and Schmitt the state, like God, is sovereign, and not the secular liberal state is a lot more complicated beholden to any system of law. Schmitt drew an than both the likes of Schmitt and many Jews as‐ analogy between the miracle, whereby God’s will sumed. Second, it argues that political theology’s overrides the laws of nature, and what he called interplay with Jews and Judaism was and remains the “exception,” whereby the state acts outside of central to the development of political theology as the rule of law. He claimed that it is the capacity a feld of thought but that the “Judaism” with to make exceptions to the law that defnes the which the rhetoric of political theology has long modern notion of sovereignty. The most infamous engaged is often an essentialist, simplistic, and application of this principle was his support for sometimes patently anti-Semitic caricature. Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution, which Parts 1 and 2 of the book’s four parts develop granted emergency powers to Hitler and allowed the frst of these arguments. Part 1 forcefully un‐ him to seize power in 1933. dermines the “facile conceptions of Judaism’s The chapters in this book critique the rela‐ commitment to modern liberalism” tionship between political theology--as laid out by (introduction, 21). For example, Spinoza is often

2 H-Net Reviews taken as the earliest thinker to decouple Judaism main vigilant about employing violence for politi‐ from politics, paving the way for Jews to become cal ends. The implication is that we can recognize, “Germans of the Mosaic faith.” And yet we learn along with Schmitt, the lingering echo of theology that, in the understanding of Leo Strauss, Spinoza in modernity without embracing the troubling was deeply aware of how difcult it would be to conclusions that he thought followed from that for Judaism to retain its particularity while em‐ recognition (Gregory Kaplan, chapter 5). bracing the modern state (Jerome E. Copulsky, Another underlying message of parts 1 and 2 chapter 1). Similarly, Hermann Cohen, frequently is that, from the beginning, political theology de‐ portrayed as the epitome of the Jewish liberal the‐ veloped in opposition to Judaism. Schmitt, for ex‐ ologian, was actually, again in the eyes of Strauss, ample, associated liberalism--the problem that his a valuable source for thinking through the associ‐ political theology was designed to solve--with Ju‐ ation between politics, prophecy, and revelation, a daism and the Jews. What is more, his ideas were perennial preoccupation of political theology refned in conversation with, and in opposition to, (Dana Hollander, chapter 2). It is commonly un‐ specifc Jewish thinkers. These include Hans derstood that political theology is intrinsically Kelsen, who was born a Jew (Kelsen’s conversion conservative. After all, at its core it is a critique of did not stop Schmitt referring to him as “the Jew secularizing trends of modernity. These chapters, Kelsen”), and Leo Strauss. Indeed, Strauss’s com‐ however, like others in the collection, implicitly ments on Schmitt’s early work led to various re‐ challenge this understanding by pointing to the fnements in his later output, as discussed here by many points of contact between the themes and Hollander (chapter 2). The book demonstrates ideas of political theology on the one hand and of that from Schmitt onwards, Judaism has played a liberalism on the other. pivotal role in the construction of theories of po‐ Using the canon of modern German Jewish litical theology: “The rhetoric of ‘political theolo‐ thought, part 2 shows that it is possible to take gy’ at its inception is also a rhetoric about Ju‐ Schmitt’s critique of liberalism seriously without daism” (introduction, p. 3). Furthermore, the book accepting his solutions to that critique. Like convincingly argues that the “Judaism” with Schmitt, for example, both Rosenzweig and which political theology has always grappled has Arendt brought the notion of the miracle to bear often been essentialized as a static and monolithic on the problems of modernity. But whereas phenomenon, dismissed as “overly particularistic, Schmitt translated the idea of the miracle (the will legalistic and antithetical to the work of political of God overriding the laws of nature) into support theology” (introduction, p. 10). In this respect, the for the fascist abrogation of democracy (the will relationship between political theology and its of the sovereign overriding the rule of law), imagined Judaism can be understood as an in‐ Arendt and Rosenzweig used it to think about the stantiation of the argument of David Nirenberg’s human capacity for new beginnings and the Anti-Judaism that “across several thousand years, uniqueness of every human birth (Daniel Bran‐ myriad lands, and many diferent spheres of hu‐ des, chapter 7). Similarly, Buber, like Schmitt, man activity, people have used ideas about Jews compared the sovereignty of the polity with that and Judaism to fashion the tools with which they of God but nonetheless asserted that there is also construct the reality of their world.”[3] a space for independent human action in politics. The rest of the volume delves into more re‐ Indeed, unlike Schmitt, who imagined that the cent varieties of the conversation between politi‐ state’s sovereignty gave it the authority to wield cal theology and Judaism. Part 3 engages primari‐ violence against the “enemy,” Buber maintained ly with contemporary European philosophers, in‐ that God’s ultimate sovereignty requires us to re‐

3 H-Net Reviews cluding Giorgio Agamben, Slavoj Žižek (Zachary ance but the very basis of ethics and the responsi‐ Braiterman, chapter 9), and Alain Badiou (Sarah bility for the other (Robert Erlewine, chapter 10). Hammerschlag, chapter 8). Part 4 comprises re‐ The second, and graver, criticism of some of sponses to the work of Jan Assmann, a German these thinkers is that they not only essentialize Ju‐ Egyptologist whose the Egyptian argued daism but set it up as a straw man, and often that Moses (as a “fgure of memory” if not of histo‐ nothing more than an anti-Semitic caricature. ry), infuenced by the monotheistic revolution of This criticism is particularly apt with regard to , propagated among the Israelites a the work of Alain Badiou, the contemporary new kind of religion that stood against the poly‐ French philosopher (Hammerschlag, chapter 8). theism of the ancient Near East.[4] This constitut‐ For Badiou, the “Jew” represents a chauvinistic ed the “Mosaic distinction,” whereby monotheistic particularism obsessed with “diference.” Resort‐ religions distinguished themselves by declaring ing back to Paul, Badiou writes that the particu‐ all other religions as false. This, in Assmann’s laristic Jew (law) needs to be redeemed by being view, gave birth to the possibility of intolerance, superseded by the universal (grace). Badiou asso‐ which became foundational to political and reli‐ ciates the “Jew” with Jewish philosophers (Em‐ gious ideas in the Western tradition. manuel Levinas in particular), with the iniquities The contributors generally take a critical of global capitalism, and with the State of Israel, stance towards these thinkers. Their criticism is of which must be saved from its focus on diference two varieties. First, they argue, political theolo‐ by ceasing to be a Jewish state and becoming in‐ gians for whom an engagement with Judaism is stead a universal one. The editors are surely cor‐ fundamental to their own thinking tend to rect that “the encounter with Judaism and its di‐ present Judaism as an essentialized, unchanging, verse concepts of monotheism and election are monolithic tradition. A more nuanced approach key tools for exposing the groundlessness of the to Judaism, they claim, would produce a richer anti-Jewish efects of the rhetoric of political the‐ political theology. For example, Jan Assmann asso‐ ology, whatever its authors’ intents may be” (p. ciates Judaism with the foundations of intolerance 14). based on his reconstruction of the fgure of Moses The editors hope that the volume’s chapters in Jewish memory and his rejection of polytheism. “ofer well-examined hypotheses concerning mat‐ But even if Assmann’s basic position is accepted, it ters of religion, freedom, order, and law emergent fails to recognize that developments within Ju‐ from the much-needed engagement between po‐ daism itself complicate a straightforward associa‐ litical theology and Jewish thought” tion between an essential “Judaism” and the an‐ (introduction, p. 29). They believe that such an en‐ cient idea of Moses. Can it really be said that the gagement will help Jewish political thought be Jewish approaches to Moses have not changed weaned from its inherent liberal assumptions by and that the idea of monotheism has remained providing “tools for conceiving of alternative static throughout Jewish history? Does not the models for Jewish political existence.” They also idea of monotheism develop even within the He‐ believe that taking political theology to task for its brew Bible itself? Hermann Cohen, by contrast, facile characterization of Judaism will help to did take account of the historical unfolding of challenge its refexive embrace of polarized cate‐ Jewish thought. In his study of the history of gories of analysis (like reason/revelation, grace/ monotheism, and in particular what he took to be law, particular/universal, etc.) and will ultimately the gradual softening of the prohibition of idola‐ make it more successful at analyzing the intersec‐ try within the historical layers of the Hebrew tion between religion and political thought. Bible, Cohen found not the foundation of intoler‐

4 H-Net Reviews

By and large, the volume achieves its stated theoretical contexts specifc to the Weimar peri‐ goals. It is particularly successful in bringing to od” (p. 242). In a fascinating discussion, he brings light the constitutive, and deeply problematic, re‐ the rabbinic laws of kila’im (the laws of mixed lationship between political theology and Jewish seeds planted in a single feld) to bear on political thought and in ofering alternative models for theology. He resists any trite translation of rab‐ that relationship. Almost without exception, it binic discourse into modern idiom, allowing the draws these models from the established canon of rabbis to speak for themselves in their own con‐ German Jewish thinkers of the nineteenth and texts, but still manages convincingly to place them twentieth centuries. Thus anyone interested in into a virtual conversation with Buber and Žižek. German Jewish thought and its particular idioms It is rare for contemporary scholars to possess would beneft from a close reading of these chap‐ both a frm command of traditional Jewish ters. sources and of contemporary philosophy and po‐ There is, however, one way in which the vol‐ litical thought. Certainly, more scholarship of this ume falls short of its own ambitions. The editors kind would be refreshing and appreciated. argue that “contemporary analyses of Judaism’s Despite the limitations in its scope, the book relationship with any political system, including remains a very welcome contribution. Anyone in‐ but not limited to the liberal modern nation-state terested in modern Jewish thought and political in the diaspora and in Israel, can and ought to theology would beneft greatly from all its chap‐ avail themselves of the full range of resources ters and from the valuable introduction by the ed‐ provided by the Jewish tradition together with the itors. The collection’s sharp and nuanced insights multiplicity of possible inferences gleaned from into the role of Judaism (real or imagined) in the refection upon this tradition” (introduction, p. discourse of political theology, and its corrective 29). Nothing could be more true. It cannot really to the ways that in which Judaism has been mis‐ be said, though, that a handful of German Jewish represented and abused by this important stream thinkers from Hermann Cohen to Leo Strauss, of modern thought, are urgent, enlightening, and (even if we throw in , Spinoza, and highly recommended reading. Levinas for good measure,) constitute “the full Notes range of resources provided by the Jewish tradi‐ [1]. Carl Schmitt, Political Theology: Four tion.” The concerns of political theology and its Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty, trans. critique of liberalism and modernity would surely George Schwab, 1st ed. (Chicago: University Of also be deepened by refecting upon Nissim of Chicago Press, 2006), 26. Gerona, Isaac Abravanel, Moses Sofer, Abraham Isaac Kook, Aaron David Gordon, Isaiah Lei‐ [2]. Ibid., 36. bowitz, J. B. Soloveitchik, and many others. Even [3]. David Nirenberg, Anti-Judaism: The West‐ with its scope limited to a certain strand in mod‐ ern Tradition (New York: W. W. Norton & Compa‐ ern Jewish thought, the book remains a substan‐ ny, 2013). tial achievement. Still, an extended engagement [4]. Jan Assmann, Moses the Egyptian: The with a wider selection of Jewish thinkers would Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism (Cam‐ have added important dimensions to the study. bridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998). One chapter does expand its horizons beyond the canon of modern German Jewish thought. Judaism, Liberalism and Political Theology is Zachary Braiterman attempts “to reposition Jew‐ a study of a century-long critique of liberalism ish thought out of Germany and away from the and the role of Judaism in that critique. The vol‐

5 H-Net Reviews ume is an edited collection comprising thirteen target of “Political Theology”, the authority of the chapters and an extensive introduction by the edi‐ state had to be justifed on its own terms, without tors. The editors have done a remarkable job of reference to theology, revelation, or indeed any collecting what could have been a diverse group kind of metaphysics. of tangentially connected pieces into a cohesive Schmitt objected to these claims. For him, the whole. The chapters deal with a host of Jewish state was not simply the product of the neutral thinkers, most prominently Baruch Spinoza, Her‐ process of law. Rather, it had to be founded on an mann Cohen, Leo Strauss, Hannah Arendt, Walter intense association of its citizens who stood apart Benjamin, Martin Buber, Franz Rosenzweig and from all others, giving rise to what Schmitt called Sigmund Freud, as well as representative political the “distinction of friend and enemy.”[1] Further‐ theologians, including Carl Schmitt, Erik Peterson, more, against liberal claim that the modern state Jan Assmann, Slavoj Žižek, Giorgio Agamben and had left theology behind, Schmitt famously insist‐ Alain Badiou. Each chapter stands well on its own ed that “[a]ll signifcant concepts of the modern terms but together the chapters constitute a sus‐ theory of the state are secularized theological con‐ tained argument about the place of Judaism and cepts.”[2] Modern politics is essentially theological Jewish thought in a century of ferce debate be‐ because it has inherited the theological structure tween liberalism and its political-theological crit‐ of the pre-modern period; the omnipotence of ics. God as lawgiver has simply been transferred to the omnipotence of the state as lawgiver. With Rather than present a summary review of the these arguments, Schmitt’s “political theology” at‐ chapters, I will provide an overview of the main tempted to invert Spinoza’s Theological Political arguments of the book as a whole, bringing mate‐ Treatise, one of the foundational documents of rial from some of the chapters as illustration. that strand of the Enlightenment that sought to es‐ The term “political theology” is widely used tablish a secular basis for modern politics. today to refer to the complex relationship be‐ This debate was not purely theoretical, of tween religion and politics. Its original sense, course. At stake was the question of the relation‐ however, and the sense with which this book is ship of the state to its citizens and to the rule of concerned, is more specifc. A word of back‐ law. Whereas for Kelsen the state has no authority ground may therefore be helpful. The term was outside of the legal processes that constitute it, for coined by Carl Schmitt, a Nazi anti-Semite, in his Schmitt the state, like God, is sovereign, and not 1922 essay “Political Theology”. He expanded beholden to any system of law. Schmitt drew an upon the ideas in that essay in several other analogy between the miracle, whereby God’s will works, most notably his 1926 “The Concept of the overrides the laws of nature, and what he called Political.” Schmitt’s political theology was a set of the “exception”, whereby the state acts outside of descriptive and prescriptive ideas about the rela‐ the rule of law. He claimed that it is the capacity tionship between religion and politics or, more to make exceptions to the law that defne the properly, God and the state. These ideas were in‐ modern notion of sovereignty. The most infamous tended as a criticism of the liberal understanding application of this principle was his support for of politics and law. Liberal thinkers in Weimar Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution, which Germany claimed that the authority of the state granted emergency powers to Hitler and allowed was essentially secular and that both the liberal him to seize power in 1933. state and its law are, and should be devoid of sub‐ This chapters in this book critique the rela‐ stantive religious or identitarian content. Thus for tionship between political theology – as laid out Hans Kelsen, a liberal legal positivist, and a major

6 H-Net Reviews by Schmitt and developed by other thinkers over taken as the earliest thinker to decouple Judaism the past century – and Jewish thought. They do so from politics, paving the way for Jews to become from two directions. Despite recent “cracks in the “Germans of the Mosaic faith”. And yet we learn marriage between Judaism and liberalism” that, in the understanding of Leo Strauss, Spinoza (Kavka, 108), represented by militant Jewish Zion‐ was deeply aware of how difcult it would be to ism and the interest in multiculturalism among for Judaism to retain its particularity while em‐ some Jewish thinkers like Susannah Heschel, the bracing the modern state (Jerome E. Copulsky, contributors acknowledge that there remains a chapter 1). Similarly, Hermann Cohen, frequently close association between Judaism and liberalism. portrayed as the epitome of the Jewish liberal the‐ Many of the contributors question the wisdom of ologian, was actually, again in the eyes of Strauss, this association, “assum[ing] that Schmitt and oth‐ a valuable source for thinking through the associ‐ ers might have been (or actually were) correct in ation between politics, prophecy and revelation, a pointing out a perhaps fatal weakness or naïveté perennial preoccupation of political theology in the optimism of all liberalism, including Jewish (Dana Hollander, chapter 2). It is commonly un‐ theological liberalism” (Kavka, 108). At the same derstood that political theology is intrinsically time, the nature of the engagement between conservative. After all, at its core it is a critique of much of political theology and Judaism remains secularizing trends of modernity. These chapters, deeply troubling for reasons that I will summa‐ however, like others in the collection, implicitly rize below. This book, then attempts to lay out challenge this understanding by pointing to the new possibilities of political discourse based on a many points of contact between the themes and serious engagement with both Jewish thought and ideas of political theology on the one hand and of political theology that avoid the anti-Jewish bias liberalism on the other. implicit (or explicit) in much political theology on Using the canon of modern German Jewish the one hand, and the refexive association of Ju‐ thought, part 2 shows that it is possible to take daism and liberalism on the other. The hope of Schmitt’s critique of liberalism seriously without the editors is that this will enrich both political accepting his solutions to that critique. Like theology and Jewish thought. Schmitt, for example, both Rosenzweig and The book has two major arguments. First, it Arendt brought the notion of the miracle to bear argues that the association between Judaism and on the problems of modernity. But whereas the secular liberal state is a lot more complicated Schmitt translated the idea of the miracle (the will than both the likes of Schmitt and many Jews as‐ of God overriding the laws of nature) into support sumed. Second, it argues that political theology’s for the fascist abrogation of democracy (the will interplay with Jews and Judaism was and remains of the sovereign overriding the rule of law), central to the development of political theology as Arendt and Rosenzweig used it to think about the a feld of thought but that the “Judaism” with human capacity for new beginnings and the which the rhetoric of political theology has long uniqueness of every human birth (Daniel Bran‐ engaged is often an essentialist, simplistic, and des, chapter 7). Similarly, Buber, like Schmitt, sometimes patently anti-Semitic caricature. compared the sovereignty of the polity with that Parts 1 and 2 of the book’s four parts develop of God but nonetheless asserted that there is also the frst of these arguments. Part 1 forcefully un‐ a space for independent human action in politics. dermines the “facile conceptions of Judaism’s Indeed, unlike Schmitt, who imagined that the commitment to modern liberalism” state’s sovereignty gave it the authority to wield (Introduction, 21). For example, Spinoza is often violence against the “enemy”, Buber maintained that God’s ultimate sovereignty requires us to re‐

7 H-Net Reviews main vigilant about employing violence for politi‐ ly with contemporary European philosophers, in‐ cal ends. The implication is that we can recognize, cluding Giorgio Agamben, Slavoj Žižek (Braiter‐ along with Schmitt, the lingering echo of theology man, chapter 9) and Alain Badiou (Hammer‐ in modernity without embracing the troubling schlag, chapter 8). Part 4 comprises responses to conclusions that he thought followed from that the work of Jan Assmann, a German Egyptologist recognition (Gregory Kaplan, chapter 5). whose Moses the Egyptian argued that Moses (as Another underlying message of parts 1 and 2 a “fgure of memory” if not of history), infuenced is that, from the beginning, political theology de‐ by the monotheistic revolution of Akhenaten, veloped in opposition to Judaism. Schmitt, for ex‐ propagated among the Israelites a new kind of re‐ ample, associated liberalism – the problem that ligion that stood against the polytheism of the An‐ his political theology was designed to solve – with cient Near East.[4] This constituted the “Mosaic Judaism and the Jews. What is more, his ideas distinction,” whereby monotheistic religions dis‐ were refned in conversation with, and in opposi‐ tinguished themselves by declaring all other reli‐ tion to, specifc Jewish thinkers. These include gions as false. This, in Assmann’s view, gave birth Hans Kelsen, who was born a Jew, (Kelsen’s con‐ to the possibility of intolerance which became version did not stop Schmitt referring to him as foundational to political and religious ideas in the “the Jew Kelsen”) and Leo Strauss. Indeed, Western tradition. Strauss’ comments on Schmitt’s early work led to The contributors generally take a critical various refnements in his later output, as dis‐ stance towards these thinkers. Their criticism is of cussed here by Hollander (Chapter 2). The book two varieties. First, they argue, political theolo‐ demonstrates that from Schmitt onwards, Ju‐ gians for whom an engagement with Judaism is daism has played a pivotal role in the construc‐ fundamental to their own thinking tend to tion of theories of political theology. “The rhetoric present Judaism as an essentialized, unchanging, of ‘political theology’ at its inception is also a monolithic tradition. A more nuanced approach rhetoric about Judaism” (Introduction, 3). Fur‐ to Judaism, they claim, would produce a richer thermore, the book convincingly argues that the political theology. For example, Jan Assmann asso‐ “Judaism” with which political theology has al‐ ciates Judaism with the foundations of intolerance ways grappled has often been essentialized as a based on his reconstruction of the fgure of Moses static and monolithic phenomenon, dismissed as in Jewish memory and his rejection of polytheism. “overly particularistic, legalistic and antithetical But even if Assmann’s basic position is accepted, it to the work of political theology” (Introduction, fails to recognize that developments within Ju‐ 10). In this respect, the relationship between polit‐ daism itself complicate a straightforward associa‐ ical theology and its imagined Judaism can be un‐ tion between an essential “Judaism” and the an‐ derstood as an instantiation of the argument of cient idea of Moses. Can it really be said that the David Nirenberg’s Anti-Judaism that “across sev‐ Jewish approaches to Moses have not changed eral thousand years, myriad lands, and many dif‐ and that the idea of monotheism has remained ferent spheres of human activity, people have static throughout Jewish history? Does not the used ideas about Jews and Judaism to fashion the idea of monotheism develop even within the He‐ tools with which they construct the reality of their brew Bible itself? Hermann Cohen, by contrast, world.”[3] did take account of the historical unfolding of The rest of the volume delves into more re‐ Jewish thought. In his study of the history of cent varieties of the conversation between politi‐ monotheism, and in particular what he took to be cal theology and Judaism. Part 3 engages primari‐ the gradual softening of the prohibition of idola‐ try within the historical layers of the Hebrew

8 H-Net Reviews

Bible, Cohen found not the foundation of intoler‐ By and large, the volume achieves its stated ance but the very basis of ethics and the responsi‐ goals. It is particularly successful in bringing to bility for the other (Erlewine, chapter 10). light the constitutive, and deeply problematic, re‐ The second, and graver, criticism of some of lationship between political theology and Jewish these thinkers is that they not only essentialize Ju‐ thought and in ofering alternative models for daism but set it up as a straw man, and often that relationship. Almost without exception, it nothing more than an anti-Semitic caricature. draws these models from the established canon of This criticism is particularly apt with regard to German-Jewish thinkers of the 19th and 20th cen‐ the work of Alain Badiou, the contemporary turies. As such, anyone interested in German-Jew‐ French philosopher (Hammerschlag, chapter 8). ish thought and its particular idioms would bene‐ For Badiou, the “Jew” represents a chauvinistic ft from a close reading of these chapters. particularism obsessed with “diference”. Resort‐ There is, however, one way in which the vol‐ ing back to Paul, Badiou writes that the particu‐ ume falls short of its own ambitions. The editors laristic Jew (law) needs to be redeemed by being argue that “contemporary analyses of Judaism’s superseded by the universal (grace). Badiou asso‐ relationship with any political system, including ciates the “Jew” with Jewish philosophers, (Lev‐ but not limited to the liberal modern nation-state inas in particular,) with the iniquities of global in the diaspora and in Israel, can and ought to capitalism, and with the State of Israel, which avail themselves of the full range of resources must be saved from its focus on diference by provided by the Jewish tradition together with the ceasing to be a Jewish state and becoming instead multiplicity of possible inferences gleaned from a universal one. The editors are surely correct refection upon this tradition” (Introduction 29). that “the encounter with Judaism and its diverse Nothing could be more true. It cannot really be concepts of monotheism and election are key said, though, that a handful of German-Jewish tools for exposing the groundlessness of the anti- thinkers from Hermann Cohen to Leo Strauss, Jewish efects of the rhetoric of political theology, (even if we throw in Maimonides, Spinoza and whatever its authors’ intents may be” (p. 14). Levinas for good measure,) constitute “the full The editors hope that the volume’s chapters range of resources provided by the Jewish tradi‐ “ofer well-examined hypotheses concerning mat‐ tion”. The concerns of political theology and its ters of religion, freedom, order, and law emergent critique of liberalism and modernity would surely from the much-needed engagement between po‐ also be deepened by refecting upon Nissim of litical theology and Jewish thought” Gerona, Isaac Abravanel, Moses Sofer, Abraham (Introduction, 29). They believe that such an en‐ Isaac Kook, Aaron David Gordon, Isaiah Lei‐ gagement will help Jewish political thought be bowitz, J. B. Soloveitchik, and many others. Even weaned from its inherent liberal assumptions by with its scope limited to a certain strand in mod‐ providing “tools for conceiving of alternative ern Jewish thought, the book remains a substan‐ models for Jewish political existence”. They also tial achievement. Still, an extended engagement believe that taking political theology to task for its with a wider selection of Jewish thinkers would facile characterization of Judaism will help to have added important dimensions to the study. challenge its refexive embrace of polarized cate‐ One chapter does expand its horizons beyond gories of analysis (like reason/revelation, grace/ the canon of modern German-Jewish thought. law, particular/universal etc.) and will ultimately Zachary Braiterman attempts “to reposition Jew‐ make it more successful at analyzing the intersec‐ ish thought out of Germany and away from the tion between religion and political thought. theoretical contexts specifc to the Weimar peri‐

9 H-Net Reviews od” (p. 242). In a fascinating discussion, he brings [3](Nirenberg 2013). the rabbinic laws of kila’im (the laws of mixed seeds planted in a single feld) to bear on political [4](Assmann 1998) theology. He resists any trite translation of rab‐ binic discourse into modern idiom, allowing the rabbis to speak for themselves in their own con‐ texts, but still manages convincingly to place them into a virtual conversation with Buber and Žižek. It is rare for contemporary scholars to possess both a frm command of traditional Jewish sources and of contemporary philosophy and po‐ litical thought. Certainly, more scholarship of this kind would be refreshing and appreciated. Despite the limitations in its scope, the book remains a very welcome contribution. Anyone in‐ terested in modern Jewish thought and political theology would beneft greatly from all its chap‐ ters and from the valuable introduction by the ed‐ itors. The collection’s sharp and nuanced insights into the role of Judaism (real or imagined) in the discourse of political theology, and its corrective to the ways that in which Judaism has been mis‐ represented and abused by this important stream of modern thought, are urgent, enlightening and highly recommended reading. References Assmann, Jan. 1998. Moses the Egyptian: The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism. Har‐ vard University Press. Nirenberg, David. 2013. Anti-Judaism: The Western Tradition. W. W. Norton & Company. Schmitt, Carl. 2006. Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty. Translat‐ ed by George Schwab. 1 edition. Chicago: Univer‐ sity Of Chicago Press. ———. 2008. The Concept of the Political: Ex‐ panded Edition. University of Chicago Press. [1](Schmitt 2008, 26).

[2](Schmitt 2006, 36).

10 H-Net Reviews

If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at https://networks.h-net.org/h-judaic

Citation: Alexander Kaye. Review of Rashkover, Randi; Kavka, Martin, eds. Judaism, Liberalism, and Political Theology. H-Judaic, H-Net Reviews. December, 2015.

URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=43210

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

11