{"title":"以色列文化中的劳动","authors":"Yaron Peleg, Eran Kaplan, O. Nir","doi":"10.1080/13531042.2022.2157967","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This issue seeks to bring into focus a perspective not often considered in the study of Israel: that of labor and class. The post-Zionist turn of the late 1980s saw the rise of critiques of Israeli national ideology and modes of inquiry that adhered to its precepts. The critique of national ideology was accompanied by growing scholarly interest in perspectives that were until then marginalized – centrally, the Palestinian one. Yet the perspective of labor and class did not fare well in this transformation, as a result of the prevalence of class discourse in early Zionism. Some scholars maintain that socialist aspirations were systematically made secondary to those of nation-building; or that class discourse was deployed simply to serve the ends of the national project. Thus, the perspective of labor has come to occupy an ambivalent place in the postZionist transformation. Perhaps for this reason, studies that did put front and center the perspective of labor by itself – such as Tamar Gozansky’s Hitpathut ha-kapitalism befalestina or Amir Ben Porat’s The State and Capitalism in Israel – received comparatively less attention, even when they share the critique of Israeli national ideology. In comparison, post-Zionist works for which labor considerations are means toward demonstrating a different form of marginalization, as in Gershon Shafir’s work on exclusionary earlyZionist labor practices, occupied the center of academic discussion. The perspective of labor by itself, in other words, seems to not count as a marginalized perspective for most scholars of Israel, even when they themselves argue for its secondary or subservient status under Zionism. This issue seeks to bring labor and class perspectives into the center of the inquiry. Any questions can be raised about these perspectives. For example, can – and should – the perspective of labor be disentangled from its older articulation with labor Zionism? Can that perspective be distinct from both Zionist and Post-Zionist approaches? Or does it necessarily belong in one of these camps? What kind of questions would one ask in exploring Israeli history, society, and culture, if one approached it from the perspective of labor? Each of the contributions to this issue reflects on at least some of these questions, in its own way. The article “Constructing a Classed Community,” by Dani Filc and Rami Adut examines the intriguing question of class formation, which the writers try to make less illusive by localizing their research and focusing on a suburban neighborhood in the Israeli city of Holon as a case study. The main question the writers ask is whether the","PeriodicalId":43363,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Israeli History","volume":"40 1","pages":"1 - 5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Labor in Israeli culture\",\"authors\":\"Yaron Peleg, Eran Kaplan, O. Nir\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13531042.2022.2157967\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This issue seeks to bring into focus a perspective not often considered in the study of Israel: that of labor and class. The post-Zionist turn of the late 1980s saw the rise of critiques of Israeli national ideology and modes of inquiry that adhered to its precepts. The critique of national ideology was accompanied by growing scholarly interest in perspectives that were until then marginalized – centrally, the Palestinian one. Yet the perspective of labor and class did not fare well in this transformation, as a result of the prevalence of class discourse in early Zionism. Some scholars maintain that socialist aspirations were systematically made secondary to those of nation-building; or that class discourse was deployed simply to serve the ends of the national project. Thus, the perspective of labor has come to occupy an ambivalent place in the postZionist transformation. Perhaps for this reason, studies that did put front and center the perspective of labor by itself – such as Tamar Gozansky’s Hitpathut ha-kapitalism befalestina or Amir Ben Porat’s The State and Capitalism in Israel – received comparatively less attention, even when they share the critique of Israeli national ideology. In comparison, post-Zionist works for which labor considerations are means toward demonstrating a different form of marginalization, as in Gershon Shafir’s work on exclusionary earlyZionist labor practices, occupied the center of academic discussion. The perspective of labor by itself, in other words, seems to not count as a marginalized perspective for most scholars of Israel, even when they themselves argue for its secondary or subservient status under Zionism. This issue seeks to bring labor and class perspectives into the center of the inquiry. Any questions can be raised about these perspectives. For example, can – and should – the perspective of labor be disentangled from its older articulation with labor Zionism? Can that perspective be distinct from both Zionist and Post-Zionist approaches? Or does it necessarily belong in one of these camps? What kind of questions would one ask in exploring Israeli history, society, and culture, if one approached it from the perspective of labor? Each of the contributions to this issue reflects on at least some of these questions, in its own way. The article “Constructing a Classed Community,” by Dani Filc and Rami Adut examines the intriguing question of class formation, which the writers try to make less illusive by localizing their research and focusing on a suburban neighborhood in the Israeli city of Holon as a case study. The main question the writers ask is whether the\",\"PeriodicalId\":43363,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Israeli History\",\"volume\":\"40 1\",\"pages\":\"1 - 5\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Israeli History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13531042.2022.2157967\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Israeli History","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13531042.2022.2157967","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
这个问题试图把一个在以色列的研究中不常被考虑的观点集中起来:劳动和阶级。20世纪80年代后期的后犹太复国主义转向见证了对以色列民族意识形态和遵循其戒律的调查模式的批评的兴起。对民族意识形态的批判伴随着对当时被边缘化的观点——主要是巴勒斯坦观点——的日益浓厚的学术兴趣。然而,由于早期犹太复国主义中阶级话语的盛行,劳动和阶级的观点在这种转变中并没有得到很好的发展。一些学者认为,社会主义的愿望被系统地置于国家建设的愿望之后;或者,阶级话语只是为了服务于国家计划的目的。因此,劳动的视角在后犹太复国主义转型中占据了一个矛盾的位置。也许正是因为这个原因,那些把劳动本身的观点放在首要和中心位置的研究——比如塔玛尔·戈赞斯基的《以色列的希帕苏特-资本主义》或阿米尔·本·波拉特的《以色列的国家和资本主义》——受到的关注相对较少,即使他们对以色列的民族意识形态也有同样的批评。相比之下,后犹太复国主义的作品将劳动考虑作为展示另一种边缘化形式的手段,如格森·沙菲尔(Gershon Shafir)关于排他性的早期犹太复国主义劳动实践的作品,占据了学术讨论的中心。换句话说,对于大多数研究以色列的学者来说,劳动的观点本身,似乎并不是一个被边缘化的观点,即使他们自己认为劳动在犹太复国主义下处于次要或从属的地位。这个问题试图把劳工和阶级的观点带入调查的中心。关于这些观点,可以提出任何问题。例如,劳动的观点可以——也应该——从它与劳动犹太复国主义的旧表述中解脱出来吗?这种观点能区别于犹太复国主义和后犹太复国主义的方法吗?或者它一定属于这些阵营之一?在探索以色列的历史、社会和文化时,如果从劳动的角度出发,会提出什么样的问题呢?对这个问题的每一篇文章都以自己的方式至少反映了其中的一些问题。Dani Filc和Rami Adut的文章《构建一个有阶级的社区》(Constructing a Classed Community)探讨了阶级形成这一有趣的问题,作者试图通过将他们的研究本地化,并将重点放在以色列城市霍伦的一个郊区社区作为案例研究,使这个问题不那么令人困惑。作者提出的主要问题是
This issue seeks to bring into focus a perspective not often considered in the study of Israel: that of labor and class. The post-Zionist turn of the late 1980s saw the rise of critiques of Israeli national ideology and modes of inquiry that adhered to its precepts. The critique of national ideology was accompanied by growing scholarly interest in perspectives that were until then marginalized – centrally, the Palestinian one. Yet the perspective of labor and class did not fare well in this transformation, as a result of the prevalence of class discourse in early Zionism. Some scholars maintain that socialist aspirations were systematically made secondary to those of nation-building; or that class discourse was deployed simply to serve the ends of the national project. Thus, the perspective of labor has come to occupy an ambivalent place in the postZionist transformation. Perhaps for this reason, studies that did put front and center the perspective of labor by itself – such as Tamar Gozansky’s Hitpathut ha-kapitalism befalestina or Amir Ben Porat’s The State and Capitalism in Israel – received comparatively less attention, even when they share the critique of Israeli national ideology. In comparison, post-Zionist works for which labor considerations are means toward demonstrating a different form of marginalization, as in Gershon Shafir’s work on exclusionary earlyZionist labor practices, occupied the center of academic discussion. The perspective of labor by itself, in other words, seems to not count as a marginalized perspective for most scholars of Israel, even when they themselves argue for its secondary or subservient status under Zionism. This issue seeks to bring labor and class perspectives into the center of the inquiry. Any questions can be raised about these perspectives. For example, can – and should – the perspective of labor be disentangled from its older articulation with labor Zionism? Can that perspective be distinct from both Zionist and Post-Zionist approaches? Or does it necessarily belong in one of these camps? What kind of questions would one ask in exploring Israeli history, society, and culture, if one approached it from the perspective of labor? Each of the contributions to this issue reflects on at least some of these questions, in its own way. The article “Constructing a Classed Community,” by Dani Filc and Rami Adut examines the intriguing question of class formation, which the writers try to make less illusive by localizing their research and focusing on a suburban neighborhood in the Israeli city of Holon as a case study. The main question the writers ask is whether the