Antisemitism will be examined not as a mob-related problem (“The Socialism of fools”, August Bebel) but as the practice of political, economic and cultural elites. This project will explore its forms, and how it functions. Instead of starting with definitions, which anticipate expected results, this project tries to investigate the meaning of elites within the context of antisemitism or philosemitism. From this approach several questions structuring the subject result: Do elites constitute themselves as antisemitic, or Aryan, or Christian (Catholic) counter-elites? Which factors are essential for this process? Is antisemitism a result of, for example, economic, cultural, political, religious conditions? Or is it rather a result of personal decisions made through the free will of those who adopt it? Do experiences of sudden awakening play a role and, if so, how do they work? What functions do elites have in the production and distribution of certain stereotypes, images, and symbolic codes?
The starting point for the project is a sample of approximately one hundred people, differentiated by milieu and profession. The selection of these cases is not random but was made according to the principle of maximal variety. This explorative approach aims to investigate which kinds of power are linked to antisemitism. This requires a systematic and experimental comparison in two respects. First, the professions’ representatives (for example entrepreneurs, actors, artists, scholars, officials, politicians, lawyers, journalists…) should be compared with those in politics, the bureaucracy, culture (or media) and the free professions. This is the only way to avoid deliberately fixing the different groups’ borders before investigating them. We can understand the elites and their representatives only through understanding what they weren’t, against whom or against what they defined themselves. Different elites should be compared with each other. The field of power in each has to be examined for internal hierarchies, fractions, and polarisations – in short: for its structure. We must not assume the homogeneity of any sub-space of society: each writer, scholar, politician, entrepreneur, lawyer etc. places him or herself through their relationships and struggles with their nearest competitors. Second, antisemites will be compared with a range of people who were either definitely not antisemites, or who possibly slightly or almost invisibly courted antisemitism. They should be compared with philosemites or people who seem to be neither philosemites nor antisemites.
It goes without saying that Jews themselves should not be excluded from the study’s comparisons. This is necessary to be able to discuss the notorious thesis of Jewish antisemitism and to develop a clear distinction between Jewish and non-Jewish elites, their connections and overlaps. What we understand by antisemites or antisemitism is a matter of the context within which individuals take positions as Jews, friends of Jews, liberals, etc., or as enemies or haters of Jews.
The outlined research project intends to construct a sample of individuals which includes representatives from the greatest possible spectrum of variations and contrasts (structural sampling). The sample will make it possible to expose the various fields of power. Within different spheres of the sample people will be chosen to enable the investigation to gauge the contrasts and variations inherent in the area concerned. By describing all cases using the same information and criteria, the study will be able to make a systematic comparison: Information about family careers; education; professional careers; party association, commission, committee memberships etc. will be included along with political positions, participation in public declarations, official statements, the use of certain patterns of argumentation, the use of pictures, phrases, stereotypes etc.
Peter Melichar, Dr phil, historian. Lecturer at the University of Vienna. Cooperation with the UEK (“Independent Experts’ Commission: Switzerland – Second World War”), engaged in two research projects of the Historical Commission of the Republic of Austria; main subjects: dismissals and exclusions from the professions; various publications on the economy of ‘aryanisation’, social history and cultural studies. Among his publications are:
Neuordnung im Bankwesen. Die NS-Maßnahmen und die Problematik der Restitution, Wien 2004 (vol. 11 of the Berichte der Österreichischen Historikerkommission)
Verdrängung und Expansion. Enteignungen und Rückstellung in Vorarlberg, Wien 2003 (vol. 19 of the Berichte der Österreichischen Historikerkommission)
(with Ursina Jud, Gregor Spuhler, Daniel Wildmann) Arisierungen in Österreich und ihre Bezüge zur Schweiz. Beitrag zur Forschung (Veröffentlichungen der Unabhängigen Expertenkommission Schweiz – Zweiter Weltkrieg 20), Zürich 2002
„Die Gemütlichkeit oder der Wille zur Abstraktion. Bemerkungen zu einem Erinnerungs- und Verdrängungskomplex“, in: Ernst Bruckmüller/Hannes Stekl/Emil Brix (eds.), Gedächtnisorte in Österreich, Wien 2004
„Arisierung – Säuberung – Auskämmung. Österreichische Unternehmer und die NS-Praktiken im Rahmen der Neuordnung der Wirtschaft“, in: Wolfgang Weber (ed.), Regionalgeschichten – Nationalgeschichten. Festschrift für Gerhard Wanner zum 65. Geburtstag (Schriftenreihe der Rheticus-Gesellschaft 44), Feldkirch 2004, 381–415
(with Ulrike Felber, Markus Priller, Berthold Unfried, Fritz Weber) Ökonomie der Arisierung. Teil 2 Wirtschaftssektoren, Branchen, Falldarstellungen. Zwangsverkauf, Liquidierung und Restitution von Unternehmen in Österreich 1938 bis 1960 (Veröffentlichungen der Österreichischen Historikerkommission 10/2), Wien/München 2004
(with Alexander Mejstrik, Therese Garstenauer, Alexander Prenninger, Christa Putz, Sigrid Wadauer) Berufsschädigungen in der nationalsozialistischen Neuordnung der Arbeit. Vom österreichischen Berufsleben 1934 zum völkischen Schaffen 1938–1940 (Veröffentlichungen der Österreichischen Historikerkommission 16), Wien/München 2005.
