The Final Taboo? Martin Walser's Critique of Philo-Semitism in Ohne einander
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Writing in 1965 in Die Zeit Eleonore Sterling averred: Der Philosemitismus – ahnlich wie der Antikommunismus – gehort zum Bekenntnischarakter der noch nicht verwirklichten deutschen Demokratie (Sterling 30). Certainly, there is ample evidence to show that anti-anti-Semitism, at least, has played a key role in the self-understanding of the West German state. The rejection of racialist prejudice, naturally, has been as much about the stabilisation of political culture in the FRG as about sparing the feelings of Jews, whether Holocaust survivors, their descendents, or otherwise. Frank Stern thus implies the ritual quality philosemitischen Habitus (Stern 351), and notes its instrumentalisation as a festen Bestandteil der ideologischen Legitimitat der (Stern 300). The impact of the Eichmann and Auschwitz trials on popular consciousness (especially as dramatised by playwrights such as Hochhuth and Weiss), the efforts by church and youth groups at reconciliation between Christian and Jews, the 1985 law criminalising denial of the Holocaust, the success of Ralph Giordano's book Die zweite Schuld (1987), and many other examples besides, all illustrate this abjuration of anti-Semitism. Yet socially-mandated intolerance of anti-Jewish bigotry may conflict with privately-held attitudes. Werner Bergmann argues that the results of research undertaken by the Institut fur Demoskopie in Allensbach in the mid-1980s indicate die Tabusierung und Latenz des Antisemitismus in der BRD. Individuals' reluctance to voice their real opinions about Jews is taken as confirmation of this taboo. Bergmann cites a 1987 IfD poll in which 66% of those asked agreed with the statement: Viele unserer Politiker konnen gar nicht ihre wahre Meinung zur Politik Israels sagen, weil sofort Arger gibt, and a large minority (39.8%) resolved das viele sich nicht trauen, ihre wirkliche Meinung uber Juden zu sagen (Bergmann 116-17). He offers similar evidence for both the present-day and the early years of the FRG in a number of works, including Antisemitismus in der politischen Kultur nach 1945 and Antisemitismus in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".