Argumentative Patterns and Epistemic Considerations: Responses to Anti-Semitism in the Conceptual History of Social Science
Employing elements taken from the typology of polemical exchanges developed by Marcelo Dascal, this essay attaempts to show the relevance of pragmatics for the history of modern anti-Semitism. Focusing on Georg Simmel, one of the founders of sociology, Franz Boas, the founder of cultural anthropolog...
| Publié dans: | The Jewish quarterly review |
|---|---|
| Auteur principal: | |
| Type de support: | Électronique Article |
| Langue: | Anglais |
| Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | En cours de chargement...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publié: |
Penn Press
2010
|
| Dans: |
The Jewish quarterly review
|
| Sujets non-standardisés: | B
history of sociology
B Franz Boas B history of sociology of the Jews B history of anthropology B Arthur Ruppin B Georg Simmel B Responses to social and scientific anti-Semitism and racism B Pragmatics of controversies |
| Accès en ligne: |
Volltext (JSTOR) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Résumé: | Employing elements taken from the typology of polemical exchanges developed by Marcelo Dascal, this essay attaempts to show the relevance of pragmatics for the history of modern anti-Semitism. Focusing on Georg Simmel, one of the founders of sociology, Franz Boas, the founder of cultural anthropology, and Arthur Ruppin, the founder of sociology and demography of the Jews, I point at the close correlations between argumentative patterns and epistemic considerations in their respective responses to social or scientific anti-Semitism in the German or American context. Distinguishing between epistemic considerations such as analytical principles and definitions of objects, and strategies of argumentation, including rhetorical moves, forms of justification or persuasion, I attempt to show that the three were engaged in three kinds of discourse: Simmel, who opposed the biologization of sociology and denied the racial foundation of anti-Semitism, was engaged in a "dispute," in which the source of disagreement is rooted in differences of attitude, feelings, or preferences. Boas, who rejected biological determinism, subsumed anti-Semitism into racism and was involved in a "controversy" with anti-Semitic writers, one beginning with a specific problem but spreading to other disagreements including methodology. Ruppin, who accepted many anti-Semitic assumptions about Jews but opposed their judgment, was engaged in a "discussion" with anti-Semitic writers, a polemical exchange whose object is a well-circumscribed topic or problem. Interpreting these responses less as contemplations on than attempts to counter and undermine contemporary social and scientific anti-Semitic ideas, I end the article attempting to evaluate their respective conceptual and historical strengths and weaknesses. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1553-0604 |
| Contient: | Enthalten in: The Jewish quarterly review
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1353/jqr.0.0097 |