A proposal to apply the concept of ‘institutional racism’ to antisemitism
The Berlin Neutrality Act, which was ruled unconstitutional by the Federal Constitutional Court in 2023, would have prohibited teachers in the school system from wearing visible signs of their religious affiliation. This was widely analysed and criticised as a form of institutional racism because it would have excluded Muslim teachers who wear headscarves from the school system in particular. What was hardly discussed in this context was that this law would also have prohibited the wearing of visible signs of Jewish religiosity, such as the kippah. There was no analogous debate that would have identified institutional antisemitism, even though here too, the Christian norm that religious affiliation does not require visible symbols leads to institutional exclusion. This meant that an opportunity for researchers on racism and researchers on antisemitism to jointly address this practice was missed.
Research into racism and research into antisemitism are largely separate fields in Germany. While research into racism is closely linked to migration research and has only in recent years gained sufficient recognition to receive public funding, research into antisemitism is primarily historical in nature and has been established for some time – albeit without particularly generous funding or staffing. In both areas, there are fewer than ten professorships. Although both fields of research overlap in topics such as migration, the constitution of the ‘other’ or violence, methodological approaches are rarely shared and empirical findings are rarely discussed with each other.
With this contribution to the debate, we would like to propose that research on racism and research on antisemitism should relate to each other more closely. We see this as an opportunity to gain broader insights and thus also a more solid scientific basis for developing intervention, prevention and education projects. Closer cooperation would also offer the opportunity to jointly defend against attacks on critical science and make better use of resources.
In what follows, we want to:
a) address the strong separation between racism and antisemitism research in German-speaking countries, b) demonstrate, using the application of the concept of institutional racism to antisemitic exclusions as an example, what a stronger linkage could look like, and c) discuss the practical opportunities and challenges this presents.
Lack of engagement between reseach into racism and antisemitism research
In recent years, a rather confrontational debate has emerged concerning the relationship between racism and antisemitism (Arnold/Axster 2024). One side emphasizes their commonalities and accordingly conceptualizes antisemitism as a form of racism. However, this position generally remains a largely proclamatory gesture: only in exceptional cases does it involve theoretical engagement with antisemitism research, and there is a notable absence of empirical studies that examine both antisemitism and racism simultaneously.[1] The other side points to categorical differences in terms of content, function, and practices of persecution. The debate is often simplified along the lines of divergent theoretical traditions (Critical Theory versus postcolonialism) and also touches upon memory-political research and practices (Lindner 2023). The arguments advanced by both sides have already been extensively exchanged and the debate has culminated in a kind of discursive stalemate, in which no rapprochement appears to be forthcoming (Mendel/Cheema/Arnold 2022).
Genuine points of contact between racism research and antisemitism research are rare; instead, both largely adhere to a form of “methodological separatism” (Cousin/Fine 2012: 176; see also Arnold 2018). Exceptions are found primarily in a limited number of historical studies (e.g., Bruns 2011; MacMaster 2000; Schüler-Springorum 2020). This discursive stalemate obstructs the transfer of theories, methodologies, and analytical tools necessary for understanding minority experiences, practices of exclusion, and the functions of ideologies in both their differences and their similarities.
The academic separation is also reflected structurally in research practice: as a rule, if such funding opportunities exist at all, they take the form of separate calls for proposals and distinct research institutes. The Federal Ministry of Education and Research maintains one funding line for antisemitism research and another for research on racism and right-wing extremism. This fuels justified concerns that these two fields are being set against one another in terms of resources, and that the already rather limited attention afforded to critical scholarship is being divided between racism research and antisemitism research. Similar dynamics can be observed in extracurricular historical and political education in both thematic areas, as well as in memory-political initiatives and institutional mandates.
What emerges here is a process of being placed in competition—partly real, partly perceived—that we, as scholars, should reject. Instead, we propose a stronger mutual engagement between racism research and antisemitism research. We argue for temporarily setting aside programmatic debates in favor of an empirical perspective that examines concrete objects of analysis in order to address questions of similarities and differences, thereby promising greater insight into the modes of operation and effects of the two ideologies or power relations—also in their interaction. In what follows, we seek to illustrate this by means of a concrete example: by applying the concept of “institutional racism” to antisemitism. Using this example, we aim to reflect on possible forms of engagement between antisemitism research and racism research.
Analyzing antisemitism beyond attitudes and incidents
In post-National Socialist Germany, antisemitism is a social relation that has been widely discussed in political, educational, and scholarly contexts. However, the everyday experiences that Jews encounter in relation to contemporary antisemitism have thus far only rarely been the subject of academic inquiry. Social science research has focused primarily on antisemitism as an ideology or worldview[2] that serves a psychological function of explaining the world for those who adhere to it, projecting insecurity and negative social developments onto the figure of the Jew (Kirchhoff 2020). This emphasis on antisemitic modes of thought and emotion is also evident in quantitative social science surveys, which measure the prevalence of these projections in the form of antisemitic attitudes (see Zick et al. 2023; Decker et al. 2022).
To examine antisemitism not primarily as an individual attitude or action, but rather—more appropriately—as a social relation, these approaches are insufficient. This has been pointed out in scholarly publications for several years now (see Beyer/Liebe 2020; Schäuble 2017; Zick/Bernstein 2017), as well as by numerous voices from civil society—above all Jewish voices (see Cazés 2022; Coffey/Laumann 2021; Gerczikow/Ott 2023). For one thing, a focus on the “perpetrators” causes those affected to fall out of view. They are rendered invisible as acting subjects; the impacts and modes of operation of antisemitism on Jews are not adequately captured, and empathy with those affected by antisemitism is thereby impeded. For another, too little attention is paid to the question of how antisemitism is reproduced—not only as a worldview, but also at the level of everyday exclusionary practices that constrain the lives of Jews.
To investigate this, the concept of institutional racism recommends itself.
Can the concept of institutional racism be applied to antisemitism?
In racism research, racism is understood as a society-wide social relation (see Hall 1989), in the maintenance and reproduction of which institutions are of particular relevance.[3] In this text, institutions are understood less as socially habitualized norms and expectations of behavior (see Berger/Luckmann 1967) and more as state agencies or organizations. Research on institutional racism typically asks how forms of exclusion are inscribed in institutions in such a way that they can no longer be attributed to the actions of individually racist actors. The focus, therefore, is not on individual employees, teachers, or police officers who hold racist attitudes. Where racist actions by individuals are addressed, this is primarily in terms of the institutional conditions that enable them—for example, the absence of complaint mechanisms, discretionary leeway that facilitates such actions, or a lack of oversight that contributes to their persistence. Accordingly, organization-specific procedures come into view, such as ethnic categorization in police statistics (see End 2019). Institutional norms are also analyzed, for instance the designation of German as the sole recognized language of communication in multilingual schools (see Dirim/Mecheril 2018; and the RfM debate 2023). In addition, laws that apply to an organization, as well as shared bodies of knowledge, may become objects of analysis—for example, the racist belief shared among job center staff that migrant women who wear headscarves are unsuitable for certain types of work (see Graevskaia et al. 2022). Evaluative we–they distinctions drawn by institutions can likewise be examined in terms of their effects, such as the categorization of students according to German or non-German language background in Berlin schools (see Karakayali and zur Nieden 2019). These distinctions may also be formulated explicitly and directly, as when the Federal Criminal Police Office labels and prosecutes organized crime committed by individuals perceived as Muslim as “clan crime.” Through the creation of a specific legal category, a heterogeneous group (people from Muslim-majority countries) is homogenized and its behavior is ethnicized (see Feltes and Rauls 2020). Institutional racism can, in principle, be said to exist whenever institutional procedures reproduce and stabilize the social relation of racism.
In social-scientific research on antisemitism, institutions have thus far rarely been the subject of systematic analysis. However, existing insights from antisemitism research can be discussed with reference to established criteria from research on institutional racism in order to assess to what extent it may be appropriate to speak of “institutional antisemitism.” This requires understanding antisemitism as a specific social practice that has concrete discriminatory effects on Jews in everyday life (see Schäuble 2017). Accordingly, one might ask: Has antisemitism also been—and does it continue to be—institutionalized in the form of procedures, values, norms, and bodies of knowledge within institutions and organizations? Do ostensibly neutral laws and procedures discriminate against Jews? And if so, where and in what ways does this occur?
A number of studies exist in this area, differing substantially both methodologically and in terms of their research questions. For the period of National Socialism, the deep entrenchment of antisemitism within institutions is evident. Some institutions were created explicitly for the purpose of identifying, expropriating, deporting, and murdering Jews. However, even after 1945, numerous studies document personnel continuities from National Socialism within state institutions (Creuzberger/Geppert 2018), including the Federal Intelligence Service, the Federal Criminal Police Office, the police, the Federal Ministry of the Interior, and the Federal Foreign Office. These findings point to habitual and ideological continuities of antisemitic traditions.
A more recent case that can be interpreted as institutional antisemitism dates back to the 1990s and concerns the so-called Kontingentflüchtlinge (quota refugees). This term refers to Jews from the former Soviet Union who, following the fall of the “Iron Curtain” and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, were permitted to enter Germany within the framework of a quota—that is, a number determined in advance by the federal government—in order to help rebuild Jewish life in Germany, which had been destroyed by National Socialism. Studies examining administrative practices in dealing with Jewish quota refugees point to unequal treatment in areas such as social provision, housing, and legal recognition, including the recognition of pension entitlements, when compared to ethnic German resettlers (Spätaussiedler:innen) from Russia and the successor states of the Soviet Union (Weiss 2022). While Spätaussiedler:innen were able, on the basis of international agreements, to have their pension periods accrued abroad recognized in Germany, no such provision existed for Jewish quota refugees. This constitutes a “disadvantaging of Jews that does not rely on antisemitic intentions of discrimination” (Schäuble 2017: 561). The resulting socioeconomic disadvantages are in some cases still visible today.
Another strand of research focuses on experiences of discrimination among Jews within institutions. With regard to the present, quantitative surveys informed by social-psychological approaches indicate that the workplace and schools are the institutional contexts in which antisemitism is most frequently experienced by Jewish individuals. In a 2017 study involving more than 500 Jewish respondents, approximately one third reported experiences of discrimination in educational settings (kindergarten, school, vocational training institutions, universities) and about the same proportion reported discrimination in the workplace (Zick et al. 2017: 17). Similarly, a 2013 study by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights identified the workplace and schools as the most frequently cited institutional contexts in which antisemitism was experienced (FRA 2013: 55f.). Moreover, in a recent study, more than half of Jewish students reported having observed discrimination at German universities on the basis of Jewish religious affiliation, while one third reported having personally experienced such discrimination (Hinz et al. 2024: 16–19).
However, the relationship between antisemitic knowledge and institutional responses to antisemitism has also begun to be explored. These studies reveal a spectrum ranging from explicitly antisemitic actions to forms of ignorance. Qualitative research is available primarily with regard to the institution of the school. Thus, in various studies published in 2020, Julia Bernstein, Marina Chernivsky, Friederike Lorenz, and Johanna Schweitzer demonstrate how antisemitism is routinely not recognized or is trivialized by teachers and school leadership; how Jewish students are discouraged from openly addressing their Jewishness; and how Jewish students are either rendered invisible, treated as spokespersons against antisemitism, or defamed as Israeli aggressors. Moreover, schools lack adequate procedures for addressing Jewish students, responding to their specific concerns (such as the observance of Jewish holidays or the manner in which the Shoah is addressed in the classroom), or responding appropriately to antisemitic incidents. In this respect, shortcomings similar to those identified in anti-discrimination frameworks addressing racism become apparent (see Karakayali et al. 2024). Particularly salient here, however, is Jewish invisibility in the sense of an assumed “non-presence” (Chernivsky et al. 2020)—the fundamental assumption that there are hardly any Jews living in Germany and therefore no need to take them into account.
To date, there has been little research on the question of the extent to which Christian normativity produces institutionally embedded antisemitic exclusions, but there are numerous indications. A recent example is a letter from Berlin’s Charité hospital, in which the application submitted by the Jewish student group to install a Hanukkah menorah in 2023 was rejected with reference to the requirement of institutional neutrality. In the same letter, the installation of a Christmas tree was justified on the grounds that it constitutes a universal symbol of peace.[4] Another example is the recent dismissal of a legal challenge against the routine display of crosses in state institutions in Bavaria (Federal Administrative Court 2023).
When the lack of consideration for Jews is discussed, reference is often made to their small number in Germany. From the perspective of racism research, however, this argument is unconvincing, since such research examines how a symbolic national–ethno–cultural “we” is constituted (see Mecheril 2004) and how those who deviate from it are defined and devalued as the Other. For this process, the number of Jews living in Germany is irrelevant. In this context, Judith Coffey and Vivien Laumann (2021) use the term “Goy normativity” (Gojnormativität) to describe the structural features of a post-National Socialist German society in which the dominant position is non-Jewish, rendering Jewishness a devalued deviation.[5] Such a perspective is comparatively new in the German-language debate on antisemitism. It illustrates the use of concepts similar to those long established in racism research and demonstrates that mutual engagement between antisemitism research and racism research can provide an important impetus.
Possibilities of the concept of institutional antisemitism
At the same time, it becomes clear that the current state of research is not yet able to answer a number of key questions: What kinds of experiences lie behind reports by Jews who, for example, experience discrimination in the workplace? Can antisemitic bodies of knowledge within organizations be reconstructed? And if so, when and how do they become action-guiding? Is antisemitism taken into account in the anti-discrimination and diversity work of institutions?
Further research into these and related questions would also provide points of reference for the development of appropriate and effective anti-discrimination policies—for example in schools, childcare facilities, universities, or public authorities. Here, the concept of “institutional antisemitism” could serve not only to capture the status quo, but also—drawing on experiences from diversity and anti-discrimination work—to help establish institutional procedures, for instance in counseling services, in the appointment of designated officers, in the composition of committees, or in addressing the potentially specific needs of Jews. Antisemitism often constitutes a blind spot within anti-discrimination practice, which in most institutions is still in the process of being developed and is chronically underfunded, and should therefore be integrated as an essential component. Moving away from a primary focus on individual “incidents” also entails foregrounding experiences of discrimination and questions of the representation of Jews, since discrimination inflicts harm and suffering well in advance of conduct that meets the threshold of criminal offenses.
Abandoning programmatic and institutional separations
Conversely, racism research could also benefit from stronger engagement with antisemitism research. Research on racism in Germany takes place not only in a postcolonial and post-migrant society, but also in a post-National Socialist one. Paradigms from Anglo-American racism research, such as critical whiteness studies, have introduced new perspectives into this field. However, transferring these theoretical frameworks to the German context poses challenges, since the concept of the “color line” cannot capture the division between “Aryan” and “non-Aryan.” Yet this division was likewise constitutive of a German national “we,” defined in opposition to “the Jews” (Holz 2001). Understanding racism in Germany therefore also requires an understanding of antisemitism, and in this way racism research—which has thus far primarily situated racialization in the context of transatlantic colonialism—can be expanded (see Yuval-Davis 2023). Moreover, the majority of Jews living in Germany are people with a migration background. This points to a specific overlap of racism and antisemitism, which likewise requires a distinct understanding of antisemitic ideology and practice. Stronger engagement with antisemitism research is also indispensable for understanding the as yet insufficiently researched forms of anti-Slavic or anti–Eastern European racism (see Panagiotidis/Petersen 2024). This is not a matter of drawing equivalences; rather, the challenge lies in precisely identifying the differences, commonalities, and possible intersections between antisemitism and different forms of racism.
Beyond these analytical refinements, overcoming the scholarly and science-policy separation between racism research and antisemitism research would also have the advantage that less energy would need to be expended on struggles over resources and visibility. This is something we should actively work toward.
References
Arnold, Sina (2018). Which side are you on? Zum schwierigen Verhältnis von Antisemitismus und Rassismus in der Migrationsgesellschaft. In Naika Foroutan, Christian Geulen, Susanne Illmer, Klaus Vogel and Susanne Wernsing (eds), Das Phantom ‚Rasse‘: Zur Geschichte und Wirkungsmacht von Rassismus. Schriften des Deutschen Hygiene-Museums, vol. 13. Vienna: Böhlau Verlag, pp. 189–202.
Arnold, Sina and Felix Axster (2024). Rassismus and Antisemitismus. In Peter Ullrich, Sina Arnold, Anna Danilina, Klaus Holz, Uffa Jensen, Ingolf Seidel and Jan Weyand (eds), Was ist Antisemitismus? Studien zu Ressentiments in Geschichte und Gegenwart, vol. 8. Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag, pp. 79–86.
Berger, Peter and Thomas Luckmann (1969). Die gesellschaftliche Konstruktion der Wirklichkeit. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer.
Bernstein, Julia, Florian Diddens, Marina Chernivsky, Jörg Rensmann and Michael Spaney (2020). Antisemitismus an Schulen in Deutschland. Befunde – Analysen – Handlungsoptionen. Weinheim and Basel: Beltz Juventa.
Beyer, Heiko and Ulf Liebe (2020). ‘Diskriminierungserfahrungen and Bedrohungswahrnehmungen von in Deutschland lebenden Juden’. Zeitschrift für Religion, Gesellschaft und Politik, 4(1), pp. 127–148.
Bundesverwaltungsgericht (2023). Pressemitteilung Nr. 96/2023, 19 December 2023. Available at: https://www.bverwg.de/pm/2023/96 (accessed 24 April 2024).
Bruns, Claudia (2011). ‘Antisemitism and Colonial Racism: Transnational and Interdiscursive Intersectionality’. In Wulf D. Hund, Christian Koller and Moshe Zimmermann (eds), Racisms Made in Germany. Berlin: LIT, pp. 99–121.
Cazés, Laura (ed.) (2022). Sicher sind wir nicht geblieben. Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer.
Chernivsky, Marina, Friederike Lorenz and Johanna Schweitzer (2020a). Antisemitismus im Kontext Schule: Deutungen and Umgangsweisen von Lehrer:innen an Berliner Schulen. Berlin: Kompetenzzentrum für Prävention und Empowerment. Available at: https://zwst-kompetenzzentrum.de/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Forschungsbericht_2020.pdf
Chernivsky, Marina, Friederike Lorenz and Johanna Schweitzer (2020b). Antisemitismus im (Schul-)Alltag – Erfahrungen and Umgangsweisen jüdischer Familien and junger Erwachsener. Berlin: Kompetenzzentrum für Prävention and Empowerment. Available at: https://zwst-kompetenzzentrum.de/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Forschungsbericht_Familienstudie_2020.pdf
Coffey, Judith and Vivien Laumann (eds) (2021). Gojnormativität. Warum wir anders über Antisemitismus sprechen müssen. Berlin: Verbrecher Verlag.
Cousin, Glynis and Robert Fine (2012). ‘A common cause: Reconnecting the study of racism and antisemitism’. European Societies, 14(2), pp. 166–185.
Creuzberger, Stefan and Dominik Geppert (eds) (2018). Die Ämter and ihre Vergangenheit. Ministerien and Behörden im geteilten Deutschland 1949–1972. Paderborn: Brill.
Decker, Oliver, Johannes Kiess, Ayline Heller and Elmar Brähler (eds) (2022). Autoritäre Dynamiken in unsicheren Zeiten: Neue Herausforderungen – alte Reaktionen? Leipziger Autoritarismus Studie 2022. Giessen: Psychosozial Verlag.
Dirim, İnci and Paul Mecheril (eds) (2018). Heterogenität, Sprache(n), Bildung. Studientexte Bildungswissenschaft. Bad Heilbrunn: Julius Klinkhardt.
End, Markus (2019). Rassismus and Polizei. Schriftenreihe des Zentralrats, vol. 12. Heidelberg: Zentralrat Deutscher Sinti and Roma. Available at: https://zentralrat.sintiundroma.de/antiziganismus-und-polizei/
Feltes, Thomas and Felix Rauls (2020). ‘„Clankriminalität“ and die „German Angst“’. Sozial Extra, 44, pp. 372–377.
FRA – European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2013). Diskriminierung and Hasskriminalität gegenüber Juden in den EU-Mitgliedstaaten: Erfahrungen and Wahrnehmungen im Zusammenhang mit Antisemitismus. Vienna: FRA. Available at: http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra-2013-discrimination-hate-crime-against-jews-eu-member-states_de.pdf
Gerczikow, Ruben and Monty Ott (eds) (2023). „Wir lassen uns nicht unterkriegen“: junge jüdische Politik in Deutschland. Berlin and Leipzig: Hentrich & Hentrich.
Graevskaia, Alexandra, Katrin Menke and Andrea Rumpel (2022). Institutioneller Rassismus in Behörden – Rassistische Wissensbestände in Polizei, Gesundheitsversorgung and Arbeitsverwaltung. IAQ-Report 2022/2. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/migrant-integration/library-document/institutioneller-rassismus-behoerden-rassistische-wissensbestaende-polizei_de
Hall, Stuart (1989). ‘Rassismus als ideologischer Diskurs’. Das Argument, 31(178), pp. 913–921.
Hinz, Thomas, Anna Marczuk and Frank Multrus (2024). Studentisches Meinungsklima zur Gewalteskalation in Israel and Gaza and Antisemitismus an deutschen Hochschulen. Working Paper 16. Konstanz: University of Konstanz.
Holz, Klaus (2001). Nationaler Antisemitismus. Hamburg: Hamburger Edition.
Karakayali, Juliane and Birgit zur Nieden (2019). ‘Segregation als Diskriminierungserfahrung’. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 6, pp. 888–903.
Karakayali, Juliane, Christina Biel and Cristina Raffaele (2024). Institutioneller Rassismus and Beschwerden dagegen in der Schule. „Ich liebe Schule, aber Schule liebt mich nicht“. In Rudolf Leiprecht and Anja Steinbach (eds), Handbuch Schule in der Migrationsgesellschaft. Weinheim: Beltz (forthcoming).
Kirchhoff, Christine (2020). ‘„Das Gerücht über die Juden“ – zur (Psycho-)Analyse von Antisemitismus and Verschwörungsideologie’. In Institut für Demokratie and Zivilgesellschaft (ed.), Wissen schafft Demokratie. Schwerpunkt Antisemitismus, vol. 8. Jena, pp. 104–115.
Lindner, Urs (2023). ‘Die Singularität der Shoah and die postkoloniale Herausforderung der deutschen Erinnerungskultur. Eine Bestandsaufnahme des „Historikerstreits 2.0“’. Geschichte and Gesellschaft, 48(2), pp. 272–300.
MacMaster, Neil (2000). ‘“Black Jew – white Negro”: Anti-Semitism and the construction of cross-racial stereotypes’. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, 6(4), pp. 65–82.
Mecheril, Paul (2004). Einführung in die Migrationspädagogik. Weinheim: Beltz.
Mendel, Meron, Saba-Nur Cheema and Sina Arnold (eds) (2022). Frenemies: Antisemitismus, Rassismus and ihre Kritiker:innen. Berlin: Verbrecher Verlag.
Panagiotidis, Jannis and Hans Christian Petersen (2024). Antiosteuropäischer Rassismus in Deutschland. Geschichte and Gegenwart. Weinheim: Beltz Juventa.
Schäuble, Barbara (2017). ‘Antisemitische Diskriminierung’. In Albert Scherr, Aladin El-Mafaalani and Anna Cornelia Reinhardt (eds), Handbuch Diskriminierung. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Schüler-Springorum, Stefanie (2020). ‘Missing links: Religion, Rassismus, Judenfeindschaft’. In Stefanie Schüler-Springorum (ed.), Jahrbuch für Antisemitismusforschung, vol. 29. Berlin: Metropol, pp. 187–206.
Weiss, Karin (2002). ‘Zwischen Integration and Ausgrenzung: Jüdische Zuwanderer aus der ehemaligen Sowjetunion in Deutschland’. In Stefanie Schüler-Springorum (ed.), Jahrbuch für Antisemitismusforschung, vol. 11. Berlin: Metropol, pp. 249–270.
Yuval-Davis, Nira (2023). ‘Antisemitism is a form of racism – or is it?’ Sociology, 2023/00, pp. 1–17.
Zick, Andreas, Andreas Hövermann, Silke Jensen, Julia Bernstein and Nathalie Perl (eds) (2017). Jüdische Perspektiven auf Antisemitismus in Deutschland. Ein Studienbericht für den Expertenrat Antisemitismus. Bielefeld: Institute for Interdisciplinary Research on Conflict and Violence.
Zick, Andreas, Beate Küpper and Nico Mokros (eds) (2023). Die distanzierte Mitte: Rechtsextreme and demokratiegefährdende Einstellungen in Deutschland 2022/23. Bonn: Dietz.
Footnotes
[1] One exception in this regard are attitudinal studies such as the Mitte studies or the Authoritarianism studies, which collect data on both racist and antisemitic attitudes (see Zick et al. 2023; Decker et al. 2022).
[2] In this respect, the concept of Weltanschauung as used in antisemitism research differs from the concept of a “closed right-wing extremist worldview” employed in research on racism and right-wing extremism, which denotes a comprehensive right-wing extremist orientation.
[3] In German-language racism research, too, there was for a long time a strong focus on acts and perpetrators (see the Einstellungsforschungen, which for many years constituted some of the few publicly funded studies on racism and continues to receive considerable media attention). Racism was for a long time framed politically almost exclusively as individual “xenophobia.” Moreover, many funding bodies tend to expect not so much basic research as application-oriented policy advice (see, for example, the frequently expected transfer of research findings into some form of practice).
[4] https://twitter.com/RubenGerczi/status/1733822237021536561 (accessed 21 March 2024).
[5] “Goy” is the Yiddish term for a non-Jewish person.
Sina Arnold holds a doctorate in social sciences and is a research associate at the Centre for Research on Antisemitism and the Research Institute for Social Cohesion at the Technical University of Berlin.
Juliane Karakayali is Professor of Sociology at the Evangelische Hochschule in Berlin. Her research focuses on migration, forced migration and refuge, post-migrant society, racism, right-wing extremism, education, and gender studies.
The German original of this article first appeared on the web site of the Rat für Migration. This English translation, by Daniel Mang, first appeared on the Left Renewal Blog.
More content from this blog
- Democratic Republic of Congo: Eternal Return of the Same? by François Polet – 25 June 2024
- Davyd Chychkan, 1986-2025
- How Fascist Is Putinism?, by Andreas Umland – 16 September 2025
- The Left and the Question of Defence, by Hanna Perekhoda – 24 August 2025
- Expropriation, Exploitation, and the Neoliberal Racial Order – 7 March 2019