Jewish Philosophical Politics in Germany, 1789-1848
amelia
(Amelia)
#1
Becoming Citizens of Hegel’s State { 61
evidence that the Hegelians in the group thought along precisely these lines.
Their self-conception as arbiters of universal Wissenschaft seemed to authorize
them to claim a position in Hegel’s idealized bureaucracy. Their “objective”
expertise in Jewish history and culture permitted them to speak from a univer-
sal perspective and, in this way, to achieve contiguity with the universal state
bureaucracy. The Vereinler understood their function to be very much like that
of Hegelian Jewish bureaucrats: they would use their rational expertise to me-
diate between the private interests of the Jewish community and the universal
state.^66
The pioneering Jewish historian Isaak Markus Jost derides the narcissism
and hubris of the young Wissenschaftler in a letter to Samuel Meyer Ehrenberg
in August 1822. A founding member of the Verein, Jost withdrew from the or-
ganization in May 1820 after Gans prevailed in his efforts to make drawing up
formal statutes for the Verein and gaining official state recognition paramount
priorities.^67 Jost’s rancor is still evident in the letter he wrote to Ehrenberg two
years later: “[The Association] is a product of the wildest conceit, the stupidest
arrogance of a few young people who imagine themselves sufficiently grandi-
ose to change an entire nation that is unknown to them. As the foundation, so
its effectiveness. To this the ludicrously pretentious statutes, the childish cen-
soriousness about all that exists, and the mindless (verstandlose) Journal bear
witness.”^68 Jost ridicules the Vereinler’s assumption that they possess expertise
about Jews and the capacity to change them, both of which he feels they woefully
lack. He takes particular aim at the Verein’s preoccupation with its governance
statutes, which he describes as risibly self-important (prahlerisch lächerlich). Jost
diagnoses a void at the heart of the Verein: it is sustained by nothing but empty,
self-indulgent gestures like formal statues, pseudo-rigorous academic rhetoric,
and captious criticism. Jost views participation in the Verein as so much playact-
ing, a hall of mirrors that serves no purpose other than to sustain the Vereinler’s
pretentious self-image. The very bureaucratic trappings that Jost found such a
laughable distraction from the task of research, however, crucially facilitated the
Vereinler’s identification with the state.
Jost was also brutally lucid about the disparity between the overdrawn rheto-
ric of his Hegelian colleagues and existing Prussian political realities. Since the
Prussian authorities had not approved the Verein, he notes, it in fact existed
illegally:
Moreover, such boasting is altogether out of place in our state; they let (man
lässt) everyone say what he wants, and then continue to act according to the
existing laws. Furthermore, this Association has so far not been approved