Place of Jews in Cultural Life: Discussion at Conference of International Student Service: German De

The place of the Jews in cultural life was under discussion at to-day’s session of the Conference on the Jewish problem held here under the auspices of the International Student Service. (Nyon was by a misprint given as New York in the report of Thursday’s session, contained in the J.T.A. Bulletin of the 18th. inst.).

Dr. Nahum Goldmann, who delivered the address on the subject, said that he was not aiming at a definition of Judaism, because he doubted whether there was any one formula that could embrace the whole question. There were two tendencies battling for supremacy in cultural life to-day, he proceeded, world-cultural tendencies on the one hand and national autonomous isolation tendencies on the other. The characteristic peculiarities of world cultural tendencies were rationalised, intellectual and democratic in the sense of spiritual democracy, and based on the existing world and not on any metaphysical speculations. The modern Jew, he said, was destined by his entire intellectual make-up to be the bearer of the world cultural tendencies. Dr. Goldmann emphasised in this connection the association between Jewish intellectuality and Jewish mobility and elasticity derived from the fact that the Jew is not tied down to any one particular place. He also stressed the Jewish disposition to join in every progressive movement. The Jew, he said, was in the main concerned with ethics and morals and he did not understand culture for culture’s sake. The Jew also dealt with present problems and lacked the sense for metaphysics.

The Jews are not opposed to the national isolation tendencies, Dr. Goldmann went on, proceeding to argue against the ideology of assimilationism. Jewish assimilation, he claimed, was not a natural spontaneous movement, but was the result of deliberate offort and was consequently forced. The tendency of the Jewish assimilationists towards apologetics was the expression of the Jewish assimilationists towards apologetics was the expression of the unnatural feeling that one had to be always defending oneself. He did not agree that the tragedy of the Jew in exile could be ended by the intervention of the State. The problem was one that could be solved only by mutual forbearance and tolerance. Every attempt at a numerus clausus against the Jews was uncivilised, anti-cultural and barbaric.

Zionism, Dr. Goldmann concluded, aims to create in Palestine a Jewish reality, where the Jewish genius will be able to develop freely. If the Jew brought a certain nervousness into the world, he said, Zionism would cure that.

Professor Deryng (Poland), who replaced Professor Smolenski, who is away ill, said that there was no conflict between Nationalism and Internationalism. He repudiated international nationalism which was Imperialistic, and meant exploiting internationalism for national egotistic aims. He was very sympathetic to Zionism, he declared. Speaking of the position in Poland, he said that if the assimilation of the Jews was possible, he would welcome it, but he felt that it was impossible. As a Polish Nationalist, he conclude, he understood the national strivings of the Jews.

Dr. Brodnitz and Dr. Lehnhoff, who spoke in the debate which followed, contested Dr. Goldmann’s argument that assimilation is not spontaneous and natural. They did not agree that if was deliberate and purely rational. They also defended Jewish apologetics, contending that it was nothing more than self-defence when one was attacked. The German State as a whole was now engaged in apologetics, the said. Dr. Sliosberg of Paris, Dr. Hermann Badt, Dr. Baumkoller (Poland) and several others took part in the debate, several Jewish students from Czecho-Slovakia and Hungary speaking in opposition to Dr. Goldmann’s views, insisting that although they are Jews they never-theless feel themselves completely Hungarians or Czechs, as the case may be.

Several representatives of the Garman students expressed surprise that the discussions at the Conference had resolved themselves almost entirely into a consideration of the problem of antisemitism at the German Universities. Why did not the delegates from other countries speak of the conditions in regard to antisemitism at the universities in their own countries? they asked.

Dr. Goldmann in his reply to the debate, referred to this question by explaining that they had dealt with the conditions in Germany more than with those in other countries because the German students were so much better represented at the Conference and also because they spoke more openly and frankly about matters as they exist in their country. The Conference would not close, however, he hoped without discussing also the position of the Jews at the Universities in other countries, and he did not think that it should carry away the impression that the Jewish students at the Universities of Hungary, Roumania and Poland were living exactly in paradise.