ÿWPCî] P¯´¦ã‹vñ“¸¯"¸2Ôgy¥)Óš&ÞH›Ms÷äþƒ¿ø‡øŽ¦÷X}Zó’DO{`71Y…×7RkA‰«¥A †ý# Ù{áSZ=sN¹úg'f)@{bÚ÷q¿iž™!ºÁeßx01wÒ(k0.‰{òyËu#ƒ½ õÊú-qx’þï‰z‹ã³ÄÔ¶ð%_ã]&°nSqŠGåj|J¼gA »cÑX»Q PÝ»×Ø&'…¥ùÅ r)|FÓOž£Ðˆ•Æ9‡¿I‘,VTтୠþ“²ñ©ÙÒ;‚™¥¸Ö9 Hõ¾wëØ•j õH_•Ÿ %ÝùA.¶ŒªÐR¼›õ‡Ò¤Xè0€} ñh¢c˜—OÙ1ñƒf=’ëÑ g7´”f|®²PÏU·âuœl>'!ßOW npM!|½ÔIBN$›‚ë;o‹ÈCPR4dÍè’'°ts£ž ”M—åáW9ñƒGè_xdÅ cJ„9Ý#™,Ë"¶ü™tŠÚ}Ã!7½¦Ò8EPÐ)Þ´ŒçxßÞó·‚{;|,2B7#ÔÒ­Ûçì‘L÷½ñêÉ„¿YùüXÞ½§íSaû¼,=½VDV#Á´UNu %à 0(Éwñ4õ  m é1 0!l 0!D†ŠÊT>YÜ—½sÉ0Nù^ ûÉ.Ð!%þ&M#( 01'( 0=X( 0È•( 0>]) 0Ê›) 0´e* 0´+ 0aÍ+ 0´., 0´â, 09–- 0ÜÏ- 02«. 0üÝ. 0:Ù/ 0…0 0_˜0 0 ÷0 0k2 0•l3 B*5 D3+5 D+^5 0•‰5 0ç7 068 0;8 0:C9 0h}9 0Få9U6+:U>a:U*Ÿ:õÉ:²¾@·pAr'Bp™B¥ Co®C 0DE aE’Fø“H¢‹Ic-McMÉóMy¼N 5O5OŠUQÖßW¬µX(aY9‰Y†Â\‰H]H]H] BÑ]˜HP LaserJet 4P,ü,,,,,ü0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡Sð,ê:i¢Ø+003|x$ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ ßÝ ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔNeedless€to€say,€these€emerging€discourses€of€Ô_ÔracializationÔ_Ô€and€gender€were€not€entirelyÐ ° Ðdistinct,€though€they€tend€to€be€treated€as€such€in€the€literature.€€Ô_ÔLaqueurÔ_Ô,€for€example,€discussesÐ œì Ðthe€sexualization€of€gender€largely€without€reference€to€race€while€Gilman€tends€to€treat€even€theÐ ˆØ Ðsexualized€Ô_ÔracializationÔ_Ô€of€the€Jew€without€reference€to€the€discourses€of€gender€that€Ô_ÔLaqueurÔ_ÔÐ tÄ Ðdraws€upon.€€€This€is€a€sad€irony€of€scholarship€for€as€even€the€popular€imagination€knows,€theÐ `° Ðnineteenth€century€Ô_ÔracializationÔ_Ô€of€Jews€and€Africans,€and€that€of€ð ðOrientalsðð€too,€was€markedlyÐ L œ Ðsexual,€achieving€its€subordinating€effects€through€Ô_ÔfeminizationÔ_Ô€(in€the€case€of€the€Jew)€orÐ 8 ˆ  Ðthrough€animalization€(in€the€case€of€the€African)€of€both€the€sex€drive€and€sexual€morphology€ofÐ d Ðmale€members€of€the€ð ðrace.ðð((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó €Ý ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú20Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔWollstonecraftÔ_Ô,€òòVindicationóó,€pp.€33,€34,€39.€€If€what€currently€ruins€women€is€anÐ ° Ðeducation€that€neglects€or€deforms€their€rational€capacities,€€what€is€it€that€ruins€men€in€theÐ œì Ðexisting€sexual€order€of€things?€€Here,€Ô_ÔWollstonecraftÔ_Ô€draws€on€the€Enlightenment€convictionÐ ˆØ Ðthat€illegitimate€rank€corrupts;€men€born€to€high€station€rather€than€earning€it€is€the€toxic€stuff€ofÐ tÄ Ðthe€òòancienóó€òòregimeóó.€€Thus,€privilege€by€birth,€which€is€what€men€in€male€dominant€regimesÐ `° Ðeverywhere€possess,€must€be€eliminated€not€just€for€the€sake€of€an€egalitarian€ideal,€but€toÐ L œ Ðpromote€social€virtues€ranging€from€authenticity€to€industriousness.€€For€Ô_ÔWollstonecraftÔ_Ô,€this€isÐ 8 ˆ Ðparticularly€important€in€the€family€where€virtueð!ðwhich€illegitimate€rank€corruptsð!ðis€nourished€inÐ $ t Ðthe€young.€€See€pp.€44„45,€146„150. ûÝ ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú25Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔOf€course,€to€an€even€greater€degree€than€Ô_ÔWollstonecraftÔ_Ô,€Mill€flirts€with€the€notion€thatÐ ° Ðwomen€may€have€a€group€inferiority€in€certain€areas,€he€even€flirts€with€a€mental€differenceÐ œì Ðrelated€to€their€sex,€but€these€differences€are€never€expressly€tied€to€the€sexual€or€reproductiveÐ ˆØ Ðdimensions€of€the€female€body.€€See€pp.€175„188. 4Ý ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú29Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThis€formulation€of€public€equality€on€the€back€of€privatized€difference,€of€course,Ð ° Ðcomprises€many€of€feminismððs€internal€tensions€and€stumbling€blocks€over€the€next€twoÐ œì Ðcenturies. ÒÝ ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú30Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔSince€religious€difference€frames€the€origin€of€tolerance€discourse€in€the€RenaissanceÐ ° Ðand€Reformation,€it€would€be€easy€to€conclude€that€this€discourse€is€now€simply€being€extendedÐ œì Ðto€one€of€the€religions€it€historically€Ô_ÔexludedÔ_Ô:€Jews.€€But,€like€the€Ô_ÔproportionalistÔ_Ô€understandingsÐ ˆØ Ðof€when€tolerance€discourse€becomes€relevant€that€I€set€aside€at€the€beginning€of€this€essay,€IÐ tÄ Ðthink€this€remains€one€of€the€least€interesting€answers€to€the€question,€especially€since€the€issueÐ `° Ðin€the€nineteenth€còòóóentury€was€not€one€of€whether€Jews€would€be€allowed€to€be€Jews€at€all,€butÐ L œ Ðwhether,€as€Jews,€they€could€be€allowed€full€participation€in€the€civic€and€political€life€of€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðmodern€state. ³Ý ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú31Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIndeed,€this€was€precisely€the€worry€voiced€initially€about€Vice€Presidential€candidateÐ ° ÐLiebermanððs€fitness€for€the€jobð!ðcould€he€come€to€work,€could€he€wage€a€war,€on€the€JewishÐ œì ÐÔ_ÔsabbathÔ_Ô€or€holy€days?€€Was€he€too€much€of€a€Jew€to€be€a€universal€representative€of€the€people? ¿Ý ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú32Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThis€securing€and€resolution€was€beautifully€exhibited€in€the€pressure€exerted€upon€theÐ ° Ðwife€of€Bill€Clinton€by€his€advisors,€after€he€lost€his€1980€Arkansas€gubernatorial€reelection€bid,Ð œì Ðto€take€his€name.€€In€1981,€after€five€years€of€marriage,€€she€bid€adieu€to€Hillary€Rodham€andÐ ˆØ Ðbecame€Mrs.€Clinton.22-s  ¿Ý ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔOne€clear€instance€of€this€change€in€political€orientation€toward€the€Jews€is€the€differenceÐ ° Ðin€both€tenor€and€aim€between€two€Viennese€policies€toward€the€Jews€that€were€separated€by€lessÐ œì Ðthan€20€years.€€Empress€Maria€Theresaððs€òòÔ_ÔJudenordnungÔ_Ôóó€of€1764€was€hostile€and€punitive€whileÐ ˆØ ÐEmperor€Joseph€IIððs€òòÔ_ÔToleranzpatentÔ_Ôóó€of€1782€was€rational,€benevolent,€and€administrative.€Ð tÄ ÐNeither€policy€made€the€Jews€citizens,€both€aimed€to€reform€Jewish€practice€and€behavior€inÐ `° Ðorder€that€Jews€could€be€tolerated€but€the€òòÔ_ÔToleranzpatentÔ_Ôóó€took€up€this€task€of€reform€in€the€styleÐ L œ Ðof€an€administrative€and€regulatory€state€rather€than€an€antagonistic€one. $Ý ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔHere€is€French€historian€Theodore€Ô_ÔReinachÔ_Ôððs€formulation€of€the€Ô_ÔhistoricoÔ_Ô„ontologicalÐ ° Ðeffect€of€Jewish€emancipation€:€ð ð...the€Jews,€since€they€have€ceased€to€be€treated€as€pariahs,€mustÐ œì Ðidentify€themselves,€in€heart€and€in€fact,€with€the€nations€which€have€accepted€them,€renounceÐ ˆØ Ðthe€practices,€the€aspirations,€the€peculiarities€of€costume€or€language€which€tended€to€isolateÐ tÄ Ðthem€from€their€fellow€citizens,€in€a€word€cease€to€be€a€dispersed€nation,€and€henceforth€beÐ `° Ðconsidered€only€a€religious€denomination.ðð€òòÔ_ÔHistoireÔ_Ô€des€Ô_ÔisraelitesÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔdepuisÔ_Ô€la€Ô_ÔruineÔ_Ô€de€Ô_ÔleurÔ_ÔÐ L œ ÐÔ_ÔindepdendanceÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔnationaleÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔjusquððaÔ_Ô€nos€Ô_ÔjoursÔ_Ô€óó(5òòthóó€ed.,€Paris,€1914),€cited€in€Ô_ÔMarrusÔ_Ô,€òòThe€Politics€ofÐ 8 ˆ ÐAssimilationóó,€p.€94 Ý ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔMichael€R.€Ô_ÔMarrusÔ_Ô,€òòThe€Politics€of€Assimilation:€The€French€Jewish€Community€at€theÐ ° ÐTime€of€the€Dreyfus€Affairóó€(Oxford:€Clarendon€Press,€1971)0ÿÿ.Normal<ÿÿ:Definition T<GDÿÿ:Definition LÓ , ÓÓ;1ܰÜ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#;ÓÓ  ÓÓ8.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#8Ó8ÿÿ6Definitionòòóó('zÿÿ&H1ò òÔ  ÔÔ‡°°°Ôó óÔ  ÔÔ‡XXXÔ(oÿÿ&H2ò òÔ‡„„„Ôó óÔ‡XXXÔ(oÿÿ&H3ò òÔ‡¼¼¼Ôó óÔ‡XXXÔ(ÿÿ&H4ò òÔ‡XXXÔó óÔ‡XXXÔ(oÿÿ&H5ò òÔ‡ôôôÔó óÔ‡XXXÔ(oÿÿ&H6ò òÔ‡Ôó óÔ‡XXXÔ2ÿÿ0Addressòòóó8SPÿÿ6BlockquoteÓ , ÓÓ , ÓÓ;1ܰÜ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#;ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ8.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#8Ó,ÿÿ*CITEòòóó,dlÿÿ*CODEÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡7<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡8ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Emphasisòòóó6&)ÿÿ4HyperlinkÔ  ÔÔ  ÔòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeòòÔ €€ ÔóóÔ  Ô4goÿÿ2Keyboardò òÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡7<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔó óÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡8ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔ<“›ÿÿ:PreformattedÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È (#/ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡7<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡8ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È (#/Ó<ª®ÿÿ:z©Bottom of Ó=€.(€˜ **=ÓÓ  ÓÔB  ÔÔ‡ÔÔ?‡9%ä2¼A`Arial?ÔÓ-€/€ -ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡8ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔ&ÿÿ0 d d----'þÿÈÈÈÈdxd'ÈÈÈÈdxd<ª®ÿÿ:z©Top of ForÓ=€.(€˜**=ÓÓ  ÓÔB  ÔÔ‡ÔÔ?‡9%ä2¼A`Arial?ÔÓ-€/€ -ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡8ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔ0Klÿÿ.SampleÔK‡7<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÔS‡8ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔ0ÿÿ.Strongò òó ó8dlÿÿ6TypewriterÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡7<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡8ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Variableòòóó:ÿÿ8HTML MarkupÔB  ÔÔ ÿ ÔÔ  Ô2 ÿÿ0CommentÔB  Ô<þ6X9`(Courier Newô\  `&Times New Roman%ä2¼A`Arial ëÝ ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€òòOut€of€the€Ghetto:€The€Social€Background€of€Jewish€Emancipation,€1770„1870óóÐ ° Ð(Cambridge:€Harvard€University€Press,€1973),€Jacob€Katz€argues€that€however€different€theÐ œì Ðnational€stories€of€Jewish€emancipation€across€western€and€central€Europeð!ðGermany,€Hungary,Ð ˆØ ÐAustria,€France,€Holland,€and€England„„€that€ð ðJewish€emancipation,€in€its€wider€sense,€occurredÐ tÄ Ðmore€or€less€simultaneously.€€It€can€also€be€said€to€have€followed€a€similar,€if€not€identicalÐ `° Ðcourse.ðð€(p.€3)€€He€argues€further€that€ð ðthe€story€of€Jewish€emancipation€in€any€of€the€WesternÐ L œ ÐEuropean€countries€could€be€told€separately€but€not€for€each€country€in€isolation.€€For€there€is€aÐ 8 ˆ Ðreciprocal€influence€here€that€cannot€be€ignored.€€The€example€and€teaching€of€German€reformersÐ $ t Ðlike€Moses€Mendelssohn€had€their€effect€on€French€Jews;€and€the€political€advances€gained€byÐ  ` ÐFrench€Jews€through€the€French€Revolution€had€their€impact€on€German€Jewry.ðð€(pp.€3„4)€€AndÐ ü L  Ðfinally,€ð ðthe€presentation€of€Jewish€emancipation€in€the€West€as€a€meaningful€whole€isÐ è 8  Ðlegitimate.€€For€even€if€the€results€of€the€process€differed€from€place€to€place,€the€underlyingÐ Ô$  Ðforces€effecting€these€changes€were€identical.ðð€(p.€4) ¨Ý ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔMarrusÔ_Ô,€òòThe€Politics€of€Assimilationóó,€pp.€10„18 ­Ý ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔMarrusÔ_Ô,€òòThe€Politics€of€Assimilationóó,€pp.€111„112. hÝ ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Ibid.€pp.€114,€120. fÝ ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Ibid.€p.€158„162. ›Ý ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThomas€Ô_ÔLaqueurÔ_Ô,€òòMaking€Sex,óó€p.€5. eÝ ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú17Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔJacques„Louis€Ô_ÔMoreauÔ_Ô,€òòÔ_ÔHistoireÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔnaturelleÔ_Ô€de€la€femmeóó,€vol.€1€(Paris,€1803),€quoted€inÐ ° ÐÔ_ÔLaqueurÔ_Ô,€òòMaking€Sex,€óóp.€5.€(3¯$§§Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý –Ý ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú18Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔLaqueurÔ_Ô,€òòMaking€Sexóó,€p.€152. ˆÝ ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú19Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔMary€Ô_ÔWollstonecraftÔ_Ô,€òòA€Vindication€of€the€Rights€of€Womanóó,€ed.€Carol€H.€Ô_ÔPostonÔ_Ô,€2òòndóóÐ ° Ðedition€(New€York:€Norton,€1988),€p.€42,€51.€€€Ô_ÔPoullainÔ_Ô€de€la€Ô_ÔBarreÔ_Ô€cited€in€Ô_ÔLondaÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔSchiebingerÔ_Ô,Ð œì ÐòòThe€Mind€Has€No€Sex:€Women€in€the€Origins€of€Modern€Scienceóó€(Cambridge,€MA:€HarvardÐ ˆØ ÐUniversity€Press,€1989),€p.€1. îÝ ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€David€Vital,€òòA€People€Apart:€A€Political€History€of€the€Jews€in€Europe€1789„1939Ð ° Ðóó(Oxford:€Oxford€University€Press,€1999),€p.€42. ˜Ý ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú26Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Rousseauððs€position€is€echoed€a€century€later€in€British€moral€psychology.€€In€hisÐ ° Ðmanifesto€against€educating€women€like€men,€Herbert€Ô_ÔCowellÔ_Ô€declares,€ð ðPhysiologistsÐ œì Ðare...agreed€that€there€is€sex€in€mind€as€well€as€in€body,€and€that€the€mental€qualities€of€the€sexesÐ ˆØ Ðcorrelate€their€physical€differences.ðð€€ð ðSex€in€Mind€and€Education:€A€Commentary,ððÐ tÄ ÐòòBlackwoodððs€Edinburgh€Magazineóó,€Vol.€115€(1874),€republished€in€òòGender€and€Science:€LateÐ `° ÐNineteenth„Century€Debates€on€the€Female€Mind€and€Bodyóó,€ed.€Ô_ÔKatharinaÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔRowoldÔ_Ô€(Bristol,Ð L œ ÐÔ_ÔThoemmesÔ_Ô€Press,€1996),€p.€82 YÝ ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Ibid. YÝ ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Ibid. ¿Ý ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔSander€Gilman,€òòThe€Jewððs€Bodyóó€(New€York:€Ô_ÔRoutledgeÔ_Ô,€1991),€175„180. oÝ ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔExplain€the€language€thesis Ý ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòThe€Jewish€Bodyóó,€p.€174.€€Gilman€adds€that€Jews€were€regarded€as€having€inherentlyÐ ° Ðendogamous€kinship€practices€that€resulted€in€impurity€from€the€beginning.€€The€Ô_ÔmongrelizationÔ_ÔÐ œì Ð(as€opposed€to€healthy€mixing)€of€Jewishness€did€not€make€it€any€less€Ô_ÔcategorizableÔ_Ô€(or€Ô_ÔrevilableÔ_Ô)Ð ˆØ Ðas€a€race.€ €Ý ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú27Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔOther€strategies€for€legitimating€womenððs€foreclosure€from€political,€intellectual,€orÐ ° Ðeconomic€life,€however,€rely€less€directly€on€the€sexual€or€reproductive€body,€and€more€onÐ œì Ðanother€kind€of€heterosexual€functionalism,€one€that€harkens€back€to€the€status„based€argumentsÐ ˆØ Ðfor€gender€subordination€that€precede€what€Ô_ÔLaqueurÔ_Ô€has€described€as€the€sexualization€of€theÐ tÄ ÐÔ_ÔgenderedÔ_Ô€body€commencing€in€the€late€eighteenth€century.€€In€the€account€of€womenððs€naturalÐ `° Ðsubordination€proffered€by€Kant€(in€the€mid„eighteenth€century)€and€Blackstone€(in€the€mid„Ð L œ Ðseventeenth),€for€example,€womenððs€status€is€Ô_ÔpositivisticallyÔ_Ô€deduced€from€their€familial€station,Ð 8 ˆ Ðand€from€that€stationððs€historically€unprecedented€isolation€from€the€spheres€of€civil€and€politicalÐ $ t Ðsociety.€€Woman€is,€according€to€Kant,€unfit€to€vote€or€make€contracts€because€€"she€has€no€civilÐ  ` Ðpersonality,€her€existence€is€purely€inherent,€concluded€by€her€husband."€€Persons€exist€in€civilÐ ü L  Ðsociety,€and€women€exist€in€the€family.€€Similarly,€for€Blackstone,€ð ðthe€husband€and€wife€are€oneÐ è 8  Ðperson€in€the€law;€that€is,€the€very€being€or€legal€existence€of€the€woman€is€suspended€during€theÐ Ô$  Ðmarriage,€or€at€least€is€incorporated€and€consolidated€into€that€of€the€husband.ðð€ ÌÝ ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú28Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔJoan€W.€Scott,€òòOnly€Paradoxes€to€Offer€óó(Cambridge,€MA:€Harvard€University€Press,Ð ° Ð1998),€p.€€x. ¢Ý ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú21Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔWollstonecraftÔ_Ô,€òòVindicationóó,€pp.€39,€51. /Ý ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú22Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔJohn€Stuart€Mill,€òòThe€Subjection€of€Womenóó€in€òòOn€Liberty€with€Subjection€of€Women€andÐ ° ÐChapters€on€Socialismóó,€ed.€Stefan€Ô_ÔColliniÔ_Ô€(Cambridge:€Cambridge€University€Press,€1989),€p.Ð œì Ð148:€ð ðHowever€brutal€a€tyrant€she€may€unfortunately€be€chained€toð!ðthough€she€may€know€that€heÐ ˆØ Ðhates€her,€though€it€may€be€his€daily€pleasure€to€torture€her,€and€though€she€may€feel€itÐ tÄ Ðimpossible€not€to€loathe€himð!ðhe€can€claim€from€her€and€enforce€the€lowest€degradation€of€aÐ `° Ðhuman€being,€that€of€being€made€the€instrument€of€an€animal€function€contrary€to€her€ownÐ L œ Ðinclinations.ðð |Ý ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú23Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔMill,€òòSubjection€of€Womenóó,€p.€134. Ý ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú24Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔMill,€òòSubjection€of€Womenóó,€pp.€136„7. dÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ8€ï¬XXdìdÈ8ÑWendy€BrownÐ d ÐòòTolerance€or€Equality:€ð ðThe€Jewish€Questionðð€and€ð ðThe€Woman€QuestionððÐ Pì ÐÓÓÌ€óóÐ  ° Ðà  àTolerance€is€intolerant€and€demands€assimilation.Ð ì ˆ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àÔ_Ôð!ðHermanÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔBrochÔ_ÔÐ Ä ` ÐÌà  àWhy€is€the€condition€of€women,€or€relations€among€the€sexes,€so€rarely€framed€in€termsÐ t  Ðof€a€€discourse€of€tolerance?€€Why€did€the€Woman€Question€in€the€eighteenth€and€nineteenthÐ Lè  Ðcentury€not€emerge€as€a€question€of€tolerance?€€Certainly,€there€are€occasions€when€genderÐ $À Ðinclusion€engages€this€discourse,€when,€for€example,€women€seek€access€to€ostentatiously€maleÐ ü˜ ÐÔ_ÔhomosocialÔ_Ô€venues€such€as€exclusive€social€clubs,€military€schools,€sports€teams€or€their€lockerÐ Ôp Ðrooms.€€But€equality,€not€tolerance,€is€our€conventional€rubric€for€speaking€about€genderÐ ¬H Ðdesegregation€and€gender€equity.€€Moreover,€while€womenððs€ð ðdifference,ðð€whether€identified€asÐ „  Ðsexual,€reproductive,€or€affective,€may€be€an€object€of€tolerance€in€workplaces,€space€missions,Ð \ø Ðor€combat€zones,€it€is€not€women€as€such€who€are€said€to€be€tolerated€in€these€instances,€butÐ 4 Ð Ðrather€their€òòdifferencóóe€that€becomes€a€matter€for€practical€accommodation€through€separateÐ  "¨ Ðfacilities€or€special€arrangements€related€to€pregnancy,€lactation,€or€other€demands€of€earlyÐ ä#€  Ðmaternity.€€Why?€€Why€is€it€that€the€place€of€minority€religions,€minority€Ô_ÔethnicitiesÔ_Ô€or€races,Ð ¼%X" Ðminority€Ô_ÔsexualitiesÔ_Ô,€are€all€treated€as€subjects€for€tolerance,€but€the€place€of€women€is€not?€€€IsÐ ”'0!$ Ðthe€key€in€the€word€ð ðminorityðð?€€That€is,€does€tolerance€always€signify€a€Ô_ÔmajoritarianÔ_Ô€response€toÐ l)#& Ðan€outlying€or€Ô_ÔminoritarianÔ_Ô€element€in€its€midst?€€Is€it€simply€the€case€that€majorities€can€neverÐ D+à$( Ðbe€subjects€for€tolerance?Ð -¸&* Ðà  àI€think€Ô_ÔproportionalistÔ_Ô€demographic€analyses€provide€the€least€interesting€answer€to€thisÐ d Ðriddle.€€So€in€what€follows€I€will€explore,€quite€speculatively,€other€paths.€€We€begin€with€aÐ <Ø Ðdifferent€take€on€the€question:€€Why€was€the€ð ðJewish€Questionðð€often€framed€as€a€matter€ofÐ  ° Ðtolerance€in€eighteenth€and€nineteenth€century€Europe,€while€the€ð ðWoman€Question,ðð€from€theÐ ì ˆ Ðbeginning,€emerged€through€the€language€of€subordination€and€equality?€€(Or€the€contemporaryÐ Ä ` Ðversion:€why€was€the€1988€Democratic€vice€presidential€candidacy€of€Geraldine€Ferraro€heraldedÐ œ8  Ðas€a€victory€for€feminist€equity€struggles€while€the€nomination€of€the€orthodox€Jew€JosephÐ t  ÐLieberman€to€that€position€twelve€years€later€was€cast€by€political€pundits€as€a€ð ðtriumph€ofÐ Lè  Ðtoleranceðð?)€€It€is€insufficient€to€respond€that€Jews€were€historically€ostracized€or€Ô_ÔghettoizedÔ_ÔÐ $À Ðwhile€women€were€subjected€by€individual€men.€€Whatever€the€difference€in€the€mechanisms€of€Ð ü˜ Ðdisenfranchisement,€discrimination€and/or€and€exclusion,€both€were€justified€by€a€putativelyÐ Ôp Ðimportant€difference€from€the€figure€of€universal€man€at€the€heart€of€the€emerging€EuropeanÐ ¬H Ðconstitutional€political€orders€in€Europe.€€€And€both€exclusions€provoked€a€common€desire€andÐ „  Ðgoal:€political€enfranchisement,€political€rights,€access€to€public€institutions,€education,€and€aÐ \ø Ðrange€of€vocationsð!ðin€a€word,€indeed€in€the€word€that€was€most€often€used€in€the€nineteenthÐ 4 Ð Ðcentury,€òòemancipationóó.€€Why€did€one€emancipation€movement,€then,€remain€within€the€rubric€ofÐ  "¨ Ðtolerance€and€inclusion€while€the€other€was€framed€as€a€project€of€equality?€€How€and€why€didÐ ä#€  Ðemancipation€efforts€fork€in€this€way,€and€what€light€does€this€historical€phenomenon€shed€uponÐ ¼%X" Ðthe€relationship€of€equality€and€tolerance€in€liberalism?€€In€liberal€discourse,€equality€presumesÐ ”'0!$ Ðsameness€while€tolerance€is€the€supplement€liberalism€developed€and€employed€to€deal€withÐ l)#& Ðdifference.€€So€why€did€ð ðsex€differenceðð€become€thinkable€through€the€terms€of€sameness€whileÐ D+à$( ÐJewishness€Ô_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔdidÔ_Ô€not?€€Ð -¸&* Ðà  àThe€answers€to€these€questions€will€be€found€in€two€richly€protean€discourses€in€theÐ d Ðnineteenth€century,€the€discourses€constructing€gender€and€Jewishness€on€the€one€hand,€and€theÐ <Ø Ðdiscourses€of€tolerance,€equality,€and€emancipation€on€the€other.€€Scrutiny€of€the€way€theÐ  ° Ðdiscursive€construction€of€Jewishness€framed€the€politicization€of€the€Jewish€question€will€alsoÐ ì ˆ Ðenable€us€to€see€how€the€discourse€of€tolerance€shifted€its€object€from€conscience€and€belief€toÐ Ä ` ÐÔ_ÔracializedÔ_Ô€identity€and€soul,€all€the€while€appearing€to€broker€religious€difference.€€And,€scrutinyÐ œ8  Ðof€the€discursive€construction€of€gender€that€€made€possible€certain€arguments€about€womenððsÐ t  Ðequality€and€foreclosed€others,€all€the€while€retaining€a€strong€notion€of€sex€difference,€willÐ Lè  Ðilluminate€important€features€of€nineteenth€century€liberal€egalitarian€ideology.Ð $À Ðà  àFirst,€then,€we€shall€consider€some€of€€the€discourses€organizing€Judaism€and€gender€asÐ ü˜ Ðemancipation€questions€took€shape.€€Against€the€backdrop€of€these€discourses,€we€will€thenÐ Ôp Ðexamine€more€closely€the€trajectories€of€these€questions.Ð ¬H ÐÌò ò1.€The€Jewsó óÐ \ø Ðà  àTo€think€through€the€formation€of€the€Jewish€Question,€the€relationship€of€this€formationÐ 4 Ð Ðto€the€construction€and€position€of€Jews€in€the€nineteenth€centuryòòóó,€and€of€this€formation€to€theÐ  "¨ Ðestablishment€of€Jews€as€subjects€of€tolerance,€I€want€to€focus€initially€and€primarily€upon€post„Ð ä#€  ÐRevolutionary€France.€€This€may€seem€paradoxical€at€first€blush,€given€that€from€1791€until€theÐ ¼%X" ÐDreyfus€Affair€at€the€turn€of€theòòóó€century,€France€understood€itself€to€have€preempted€the€ð ðJewishÐ ”'0!$ ÐQuestionðð€raging€elsewhere€on€the€Continent€with€straightforward€emancipation€andÐ l)#& Ðenfranchisement.€€As€we€shall€see,€the€picture€is€a€bit€more€complex.€€Moreover,€preciselyÐ D+à$( Ðbecause€ð ðemancipationðð€was€the€standard€for€the€civic€and€political€inclusion€of€Jews€acrossÐ -¸&* ÐEurope€in€the€nineteenth€century,€France€stands€as€a€kind€of€paradigm,€or€perhaps,€parable,€ofÐ d Ðmodernity,€in€the€story€it€harbors€of€Jewish€emancipation,€assimilation,€and€tolerance.׃:×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð <Ø Ðà  àThe€emancipation€of€Jews€was€debated€intensely€by€the€French€National€Assembly€inÐ  ° ÐDecember€1789.€€The€debate€turned€upon€the€question€of€whether€Jews€were€Frenchmen,€and€ifÐ ì ˆ Ðnot,€whether€they€could€nevertheless€become€citizens€in€a€newly€born€regime€in€which€theÐ Ä ` Ðrepublic€and€its€members€were€held€to€be€mutually€constitutive.׃DŒ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€the€context€of€a€generalÐ œ8  Ðconsensus€in€favor€of€secularizing€the€state€and€diminishing€the€public€force€of€religion,€no€oneÐ t  Ðin€the€Assembly€argued€for€mere€tolerance€of€practicing€Jews„„that€argument€would€have€impliedÐ Lè  Ða€hegemonic€and€public€religion€at€odds€with€the€pervasive€anti„religious€sentiment€of€the€time.€Ð $À ÐThere€was,€however,€heated€debate€about€whether€or€not€Jews€constituted€a€nation€apart€andÐ ü˜ Ðwhether€such€a€constitution€debarred€Jews€from€membership€in€the€Republic.€€€For€those,€such€asÐ Ôp Ðâ âAbbe€Maury,€who€insisted€that€the€very€term€Jew€ð ðdenotes€a€nation,ðð€it€followed€that€JewsÐ ¬H Ðshould€be€protected,€but€not€enfranchisedð!ðthey€could€not€simultaneously€belong€to€two€nations.׃F×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Рd Ðâ âBut€for€those€who€understood€the€Revolution€itself€as€containing€the€project€of€French€nation„Ð <Ø Ðbuilding,€the€clear€task€was€to€dismantle€rather€than€honor€the€remnants€of€Jewish€nationhood.€Ð  ° ÐHere€is€the€case€put€by€Count€Ô_ÔStanislawÔ_Ô€de€Clermont„Ô_ÔTonnerreÔ_Ô,€the€lead€speaker€on€behalf€ofÐ ì ˆ ÐJewish€emancipation€in€the€December€1789€Assembly€session:Ð Ä ` Ðà0  àAs€a€nation€the€Jews€must€be€denied€everything,€as€individuals€they€must€be€grantedÐ œ8  Ðeverything;€their€judges€can€no€longer€be€recognized;€their€recourse€must€be€to€our€ownÐ t  Ðexclusively;€legal€protection€for€the€doubtful€laws€by€which€Jewish€corporate€existence€isÐ Lè  Ðmaintained€must€end;€they€cannot€be€allowed€to€create€a€political€body€or€a€separate€orderÐ $À Ðwithin€the€state;€it€is€necessary€that€they€be€citizens€individually.׃G|×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ðü˜(#(# ÐEntwining€Hobbes€and€Foucault€in€a€single€sentence,€Clermont„Ô_ÔTonnerreÔ_Ô€specifies€theÐ Ôp Ðrequirements€for€carving€the€new€citizen„subject€out€of€the€old€corporate€body:€€individuation,Ð ¬H Ðadherence€to€general€rules€and€to€a€single€legal€and€social€norm,€undivided€state€authority.€€EvenÐ „  Ðas€conventional€tolerance€arguments€are€spurned€by€the€Assembly,€Clermont„Ô_ÔTonnerreÔ_Ô€makesÐ \ø Ðclear€the€tacit€toleration€deal€undergirding€emancipation,€one€that€submits€tolerated€subject€toÐ 4 Ð Ðstate€administration€at€the€very€moment€of€emancipation€and€enfranchisement.€€€His€formulationÐ  "¨ Ðprecisely€expresses€the€twin€processes€of€individuation€and€of€privatization€of€religious€or€otherÐ ä#€  Ðlocal€Ô_ÔfilliationsÔ_Ô€and€beliefs€entailed€in€belonging€to€the€new€universal€state,€processes€thatÐ ¼%X" Ðrequired,€in€a€phrase,€the€Ô_ÔProtestantizationÔ_Ô€of€the€Jew.€€€To€be€compatible€with€membership€in€theÐ ”'0!$ ÐFrench€republic,€Jews€had€to€be€individuated,€denationalized,€Ô_ÔdecorporatizedÔ_Ô€as€Jews.€€€If€it€wasÐ l)#& Ðgoing€to€cohabit€with€Frenchness,€Jewishness€could€no€longer€consist€fundamentally€in€belongingÐ d Ðto€a€community€bound€together€by€religious€law,€ritualized€practices,€and€generational€continuity,Ð <Ø Ðbut€would,€rather,€consist€at€most€in€privately€held€and€conducted€belief.€€Ð  ° Ðà  àTo€the€extent€that€Jewishness€had€been€defined€for€millennia€through€the€figure€of€theÐ ì ˆ Ðdispersed€nation,€this€requirement€assaults€Jewishness€itself.€€It€does€not€merely€privatize€orÐ Ä ` Ðattenuate€Judaismððs€claims€upon€its€subjects,€but€voids€them€of€substance.€€In€part€it€is€thisÐ œ8  Ðassault€that€would€incite€Jews€in€the€next€century€to€embrace€an€available€Ô_ÔracializedÔ_Ô€definition€ofÐ t  ÐJudaism,€a€definition€that€could€serve€as€something€of€a€replacement€for€the€identity€conferred€byÐ Lè  Ðthe€concept€of€the€dispersed€nation.€€We€shall€return€to€this€matter€momentarily;€first€letððs€get€theÐ $À ÐFrench€Jews€emancipated.Ð ü˜ Ðà  àIn€December€1789,€the€French€Assembly€stalemated€on€the€question€of€rights€for€Jews.€Ð Ôp ÐHowever,€two€years€later,€when€the€issue€of€€Jews€inhabiting€the€eastern€provinces€was€debated,Ð ¬H Ðthe€Assembly€voted€to€rescind€all€decrees,€prohibitions,€and€privileges€relating€to€Jews.€€WithoutÐ „  Ðresolving€the€question€of€whether€Jews€were€French,€of€whether€they€constituted€a€nation€apart,Ð \ø ÐJews€were€formally€emancipated€and€enfranchised.€€For€if€the€question€of€Jewish€FrenchnessÐ 4 Ð Ðcould€not€be€settled€easily,€the€matter€of€incorporating€outlying€elements€of€the€population€intoÐ  "¨ Ðthe€state€was€pressing.€€Thus,€retrospectively,€this€stumbling,€stuttering€approach€to€JewishÐ ä#€  Ðemancipation€in€the€French€Revolution€is€explainable€according€to€the€Ô_ÔcrosstidesÔ_Ô€of€immediateÐ ¼%X" Ðconcern€with€membership€criteria€in€building€republican€France€and€the€long€term€process€ofÐ ”'0!$ Ðconsolidating€emerging€nation€state€formations.€€Thus,€French€Revolutionary€incorporation€ofÐ l)#& ÐJews€appears€inevitable€as€the€logical€extension€of€principles€of€universal€equality€and€liberty€butÐ D+à$( Ðalso€as€consistent€with€the€tendency€of€all€European€states,€at€the€end€of€the€eighteenthòòóó€century,€toÐ -¸&* Ðcentralize,€rationalize,€and€regularize€their€power€and€reach.€€The€anomalous€status€of€Jews€inÐ d ÐEurope€during€the€medieval€and€early€Modern€periodsð!ðð ðinðð€but€not€ð ðofðð€various€EuropeanÐ <Ø Ðnationsð!ðhad€to€be€resolved.€€To€that€end,€Jews€had€to€be€brought€within€the€ambit€and€orbit€of€theÐ  ° Ðstate,€and€hence€incorporated€into€a€nation€increasingly€defined€through€abstract,€universalÐ ì ˆ Ðcitizenship.€€Ð Ä ` Ðà  àHowever,€to€be€brought€into€the€nation,€Jews€also€had€to€be€made€to€fit,€and€for€that,€theyÐ œ8  Ðneeded€to€be€transformed,€cleaned€up,€normalized.€€It€is€these€double€forces€of€recognition€andÐ t  Ðremaking,€of€emancipation€and€subjection,€of€Ô_ÔdecorporatizationÔ_Ô€as€Jews€and€incorporation€asÐ Lè  Ðnation„state€citizens,€that€characterize€the€relation€of€Jews€to€the€state€in€nineteenth€centuryÐ $À ÐEurope,€and€comprise€the€tacit€regime€of€toleranceð!ð€even€as€it€was€sometimes€namedÐ ü˜ Ðemancipationð!ðunder€which€Jewish€incorporation€into€the€nation€was€managed.€€Attention€to€thisÐ Ôp Ðprocess€also€reminds€us€that€response€to€the€ð ðJewish€Questionðð€by€the€consolidating€states€wasÐ ¬H Ðframed€more€by€òòraison€dððetatóó€than€by€political€principle€or€considerations€of€Jewish€welfare.Ô_Ô׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_ÔÐ „  Ðà  àWhat€did€it€mean€for€French€Jews€to€become€citizens?€Citizenship€in€republican€FranceÐ \ø Ðwas€no€formal€category€extended€to€an€individual€with€rights:€rather,€it€involved€membership€inÐ 4 Ð Ðthe€republic,€identification€with€the€state,€and€participation€in€French€national€culture.€€Thus,€theÐ  "¨ Ðprocess€of€making€Jews€citizens€meant€making€them€French,€which€meant€modulating€both€anyÐ ä#€  Ðdistinctively€Jewish€sense€of€community€and€any€distinctively€Jewish€practices€and€habits.€Ð ¼%X" ÐBecoming€part€of€the€French€nation€in€this€deep€sociological€way€supplied€yet€another€impetusÐ d Ðfor€severing€attachment€to€the€dispersed€Jewish€nation,€and€it€was€ideologically€framed€by€anÐ <Ø ÐEnlightenment€modernizing€rationalism€as€well:€€Assimilation,€the€thinking€went,€would€makeÐ  ° ÐJews€more€modern,€more€European,€and€more€free;€€Jews€shedding€archaic€and€tribal€JewishÐ ì ˆ Ðpractices€and€beliefs€in€favor€of€becoming€French€signified€all€three€insofar€as€the€French€nationÐ Ä ` Ðstood€for€all€three.€€Emblematic€in€this€regard€was€the€nineteenth€century€Ô_ÔassimilationistÔ_Ô€JewishÐ œ8  Ðhistoriography€which€cast€the€Revolution€of€1789€as€the€ð ðmodern€Passover,ðð€the€second€flightÐ t  Ðfrom€Egypt.Ô_Ô׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€€€In€this€historical€Ô_ÔmetanarrativeÔ_Ô,€the€Revolution€that€emancipated€French€JewsÐ Lè  Ðconferred€upon€the€French€nation€a€hallowed€place€in€Jewish€history€and€in€so€doing,€establishedÐ $À ÐFrance€as€a€nation€especially€worthy€of€Jewish€attachment€and€loyalty.Ô_Ô׃h×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€€€Ð ü˜ Ðà  àAs€assimilation€proceeded€over€the€course€of€the€nineteenthòòóó€century,€what€kept€JewsÐ Ôp Ðthemselves€from€disappearing?€€How€could€Jewish€practice,€belief,€and/or€attachment€to€theÐ ¬H ÐJewish€nation€decline€radically€or€vanish€altogether€without€taking€the€Jew€with€it?€€The€mid„Ð „  Ðnineteenth€century€formulation€of€Jews€as€a€physiological€òòraceóó€replaced€the€eighteenth€centuryÐ \ø Ðunderstanding€of€Jews€as€defined€by€common€language,€beliefs,€practices€and€nationhood.€Ð 4 Ð ÐAccording€to€nineteenth€century€race€discourse,€race€was€inscribed€in€every€element€of€the€bodyÐ  "¨ Ðand€soul,€mind€and€sexuality,€temperament€and€ability.Ô_Ô׃H×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€€Thus,€race€could€endure€after€all€of€theÐ d Ðconstituent€elements€of€nationð!ðelements€which€had€to€be€òòperformedóó,€and€were€not€(discursivelyÐ <Ø Ðinscribed)€attributesð!ðhad€been€radically€reduced€or€eliminated.€€Race€allowed€(or€required,Ð  ° Ðdepending€on€oneððs€perspective)€the€Jew€to€be€a€Jew€no€matter€how€fully€assimilated.€€€ByÐ ì ˆ Ðmarking€Jewishness€as€set€of€physically€distinguishable€attributesð!ðskin€color€and€health,€nose€andÐ Ä ` Ðfeet€sizeð!ðand€at€the€same€time€casting€it€as€that€which€saturated€every€aspect€of€the€being€of€theÐ œ8  ÐJew,€race€sustained€Jewishness€during€assimilation€in€ways€that€definitions€of€Jewishness€rootedÐ t  Ðin€nationhood€or€religious€belief€could€not.€€Ô_ÔRacializationÔ_Ô€would€also€produce€a€new€subject€ofÐ Lè  Ðtolerance€in€Christian€culture:€defined€neither€by€belief€nor€Ô_ÔfilliationÔ_Ô,€the€Ô_ÔracializedÔ_Ô€Jew€wouldÐ $À Ðbecome€highly€individuated€as€well€as€physiologically,€intellectually,€and€emotionally€saturatedÐ ü˜ Ðby€Jewishness.€€This€new€Jewish€subject€would€in€turn€bring€into€being€1)a€new€semiotics€ofÐ Ôp Ðtolerance€in€which€Otherness€was€carried€on€and€in€the€body;€2)a€new€administrative€subject€ofÐ ¬H Ðtolerance€in€which€bodily€being€rather€than€practices,€beliefs€or€Ô_ÔfilliationÔ_Ô€would€be€decisive,€or€atÐ „  Ðleast€in€which€bodily€being€was€presumed€to€carry€the€morphological€code€for€all€else€such€thatÐ \ø Ðdifference€became€ontological€and€hence€permanent;€and€3)a€new€and€ambiguous€source€forÐ 4 Ð Ðconferring€tolerance,€located€in€civil€society€and€not€only€the€state€and€the€Church.Ð  "¨ Ðà  àThe€Ô_ÔracializationÔ_Ô€of€the€Jew€during€the€nineteenth€century€was€produced€by€discoursesÐ ä#€  Ðranging€from€anthropological€and€biological€to€philological€and€literary.Ô_Ô׃;|×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€€All€of€these€discoursesÐ ¼%X" Ðbuilt€on€the€nineteenth€century€zeal,€scholarly€and€popular,€for€Ô_ÔtypologyÔ_Ô,€classification,€andÐ ”'0!$ Ðmeasurement,€and€drew€for€evidence€upon€everything€from€brain€size€and€survival€capacity€to€theÐ l)#& Ðorigins€of€languages€and€language€groups.׃I×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€The€developing€body€of€racial€theory€was€notÐ d Ðinternally€coherent€or€systematic,€nor€was€it€radically€isolated€from€cultural€theory€and€history.€Ð <Ø ÐBiological€theories€were€mixed€with€historical€analyses€of€oppression€to€explain€how,€forÐ  ° Ðexample,€Jews€had€survived€despite€oppression€and€persecution,€how€certain€physical€atrophiesÐ ì ˆ Ðin€the€Jewish€body€might€have€resulted€from€oppression,€or€why€Jews€came€to€look€more€likeÐ Ä ` Ðtheir€gentile€brethren€in€certain€European€nations€than€in€others,€indeed€why€Jews€varied€so€muchÐ œ8  Ðin€their€appearance€across€Europe.€€€Moreover,€much€of€the€racial€theory€marking€Jews€asÐ t  Ðð ðblackðð€in€nineteenth€century€Germany€and€Austria€was€rooted€in€speculations€about€JewishÐ Lè  Ðinterbreeding€with€Africans€during€the€period€of€the€Alexandrian€exile,€thus€constituting€Jews€asÐ $À Ða€mongrel€rather€than€pure€race€and€producing€Ô_ÔmongrelizationÔ_Ô€as€an€explanation€for€JewishÐ ü˜ Ðinferiority.׃J|×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð Ôp Ðà  àWhat€these€notably€unsystematic€and€unscientific€theories€provided€to€Jews,€Gentiles,Ð ¬H Ðleftists,€liberals€and€anti„Semites€alike€was€a€means€of€establishing€the€enduring€fact€of€Ô_ÔJewishessÔ_ÔÐ „  Ðindependently€of€religious€practices€or€beliefs.€€Particularly€in€the€context€of€French€Catholicism,Ð \ø Ðbut€also€in€the€more€general€context€of€tolerance€discourse€concerned€with€Protestant€sects,€theÐ 4 Ð ÐÔ_ÔracializationÔ_Ô€of€the€Jew€rendered€Ô_ÔJewishessÔ_Ô€an€exception€to€the€general€construal€of€religion€as€aÐ  "¨ Ðbelief€community.€€Rather,€treating€Jewishness€as€a€racial€formation€meant€that€Jewish€beliefÐ ä#€  Ðcould€die€while€the€Jew€lived.€€Neither€God€nor€Torah€nor€Jewish€corporate€community€nor€ritualÐ ¼%X" Ðpractices€were€relevant€to€the€identification€of€Jewishness€once€race€had€taken€hold.€€DefinedÐ d Ðracially,€Jewishness€was€something€one€carried€€individually,€everywhere,€and€always.€€Again,Ð <Ø Ðthis€meant€that€tolerance€would€change€the€definition€and€circumscription€of€its€object:€JewsÐ  ° Ðmight€still€be€thought€of€as€a€group,€but€the€structure€of€affinity€rendering€them€a€group€was€theÐ ì ˆ Ðrace€rather€than€the€nation,€putatively€objective€traits€rather€than€subjective€attachment€or€mattersÐ Ä ` Ðof€consciousness.€€At€the€same€time,€Ô_ÔracializationÔ_Ô€established€the€Jewish€difference€as€permanent,Ð œ8  Ðdeep,€and€impossible€to€overcome.€€Even€after€the€dismantling€of€Jewish€nationhood,€it€wouldÐ t  Ðconstitute€Jews€as€permanently€outside€a€nation€conceived€as€homogenous€insiders.Ð Lè  Ðà  àMost€historians€argue€that€despite€the€anti„Semitic€uses€to€which€it€could€be€and€was€put,Ð $À Ðnineteenth€century€European€Jews€generally€took€up€the€discourse€of€Ô_ÔracializationÔ_Ô€withÐ ü˜ Ðequanimity€and€even€zeal.Ô_Ô׃<×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€€However€awkwardly,€this€discourse€allowed€Jews€to€retain€andÐ Ôp Ðcomprehend€a€Jewish€identity,€one€that€established€a€modicum€of€community€and€connectionÐ ¬H Ðacross€generations,€even€as€they€assimilated;€it€guaranteed€that€Jewishness€itself€would€not€perishÐ „  Ðthrough€assimilation€€€Nor€did€accounts€of€Jews€as€a€racial€type€run€in€a€purely€pejorativeÐ \ø Ðdirectionð!ðJewish€superiority€as€well€as€inferiority€was€inferred€from€it€by€Jews€and€non„JewsÐ 4 Ð Ðalike.€€And€in€the€context€of€French€nationalism,€the€racial€discourse€offered€the€peculiarÐ  "¨ Ðpotential€for€establishing€a€certain€affinity€between€Jewishness€and€Frenchness,€in€which€superiorÐ ä#€  Ðmoral€characteristics€attributed€to€each€were€understood€as€carrying€the€potential€for€mutualÐ ¼%X" Ðenrichment€as€Jews€assimilated€and€inter„married.€€If€both€Jews€and€the€French,€as€racial€types,Ð ”'0!$ Ðwere€figured€as€sharing€a€bourgeois€orientation€toward€family,€work,€money,€and€the€future,€andÐ l)#& Ðif€both€the€Revolution€of€1789€and€ancient€Israel€were€figured€as€historical€episodes€expressing€aÐ D+à$( Ðcollective€aspiration€to€realize€liberty,€equality,€and€fraternity€on€earth,€then€not€only€were€€theÐ d ÐFrench€and€the€Jews€each€an€elect€people,€they€were€compatible€elects.€€This€line€of€thinkingÐ <Ø Ðproduced€yet€another€argument€for€assimilation,€one€having€utility€for€French€society€as€well€asÐ  ° ÐJews,€in€which€Jewish€blood€coursing€through€France€would€strengthen€French€society€andÐ ì ˆ Ðimprove€the€overall€stock€of€a€nation€already€at€the€forefront€of€world€history.€€According€to€oneÐ Ä ` Ðhistorian,€by€the€time€of€the€Dreyfus€Affair€at€the€turn€of€the€century,€this€theoretical€associationÐ œ8  Ðof€the€character€and€project€of€Judaism€with€modern€Franceð!ðwhat€amounted€to€the€intellectualÐ t  Ðdimension€of€Ô_ÔassimilationistÔ_Ô€ideologyð!ðhad€become€the€official€doctrine€of€French€JewishÐ Lè  Ðcommunity,€challenged€by€none.׃=×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð $À Ðà  àAssimilation,€of€course,€came€with€various€kinds€of€subtle€tolls,€which€themselves€revealÐ ü˜ Ðimportant€features€of€the€politics€of€tolerance.€€As€French€Jews€devoted€themselves€to€becomingÐ Ôp ÐFrench,€and€to€identifying€with€Frenchness,€not€only€was€their€connection€to€and€identificationÐ ¬H Ðwith€Jews€in€other€lands€necessarily€attenuatedð!ða€matter€of€some€significance€in€relation€to€theÐ „  Ðbrutal€Russian€pogroms€of€the€late€nineteenth€centuryð!ðbut€Jews€also€had€to€moderate€their€ownÐ \ø Ðresponses€to€domestic€anti„Semitism€if€they€were€not€to€seem€excessively€Jewish€rather€thanÐ 4 Ð ÐFrench.€€To€make€the€move€from€the€margins€to€the€mainstream€of€French€society,€FrenchÐ  "¨ ÐJudaism€became€increasingly€politically€and€socially€conservative€during€the€second€half€of€theÐ ä#€  Ðnineteenth€century.€€And,€in€the€late€nineteenth€century,€assimilated€French€Jews€drew€back€fromÐ ¼%X" Ðnew€Jewish€immigrants€fleeing€the€Eastern€European€and€Russian€pogroms.€€These€newcomersÐ ”'0!$ Ðwere€an€embarrassmentð!ðthey€were€too€poor,€too€unmannered,€and€above€all,€too€Jewish.׃>|×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€Ð l)#& ÐThus,€the€process€of€trying€to€become€French€while€racially€marked€as€Other€entailed€involvedÐ d Ðdisavowing€not€just€Jewish€belief,€practice,€or€the€nation,€but€Ô_ÔdisidentifyingÔ_Ô€with€their€mostÐ <Ø Ðvictimized€brethren€and€their€politically€radical€brethren,€and€abandoning€political€enmity€(e.g.,€Ð  ° Ðtoward€Russia)€where€it€was€not€shared€by€the€French€state.€€€In€sum,€the€price€of€tolerance€wasÐ ì ˆ Ðconsiderable:€compromise€of€religious€and€political€belief,€repudiation€of€fellow€Jews,€fealty€to€aÐ Ä ` Ðstate€that€did€not€return€it.Ð œ8  Ðà  àTo€this€point,€I€have€used€the€term€tolerance€in€several€different€senses€to€analyze€JewishÐ t  Ðemancipation€in€the€nineteenth€century€and€I€want€to€pause€now€to€make€explicit€these€multipleÐ Lè  Ðuses.€€First,€there€is€the€tolerance€held€out€to€Jews€in€exchange€for€assimilation,€a€toleranceÐ $À Ðadministered€simultaneously€by€the€state€and€by€Jews€themselves.€€This€practice€was€not€namedÐ ü˜ Ðtolerance€in€France,€that€is,€it€was€not€framed€as€the€orientation€of€the€state€or€the€Church€towardÐ Ôp Ða€minoritized€religion€by€a€dominant€religion.€€Rather,€it€was€a€project€oriented€toward€producingÐ ¬H Ða€unified€nation,€a€homogenous€and€manageable€citizenry,€and€aimed€as€well€at€ending€the€clashÐ „  Ðof€nations€represented€by€the€Jewish€presence€in€France.€€Not€named€tolerance€but€tolerance€itÐ \ø Ðwas,€as€Clermont„Ô_ÔTonnerreÔ_Ô€made€clear€in€delineating€its€strenuous€conditions:€€the€disaggregationÐ 4 Ð Ðof€the€Jewish€nation,€the€decorporatization€of€Jews,€the€attachment€of€Jews€to€the€French€nation,Ð  "¨ Ðthe€making€of€Jews€into€modern€French€republicans,€the€dissociation€of€French€Jews€from€JewsÐ ä#€  Ðelsewhere.€€The€binding€force€of€the€Jewish€nation€was€replaced€by€the€regulating€discourses€ofÐ ¼%X" Ðracialization€on€one€side€and€of€Frenchness€on€the€other;€tolerance€of€assimilating€Jews€wasÐ ”'0!$ Ðadministered€through€the€normative€powers€of€these€tacitly€mutually€constitutive€discourses.€€TheÐ l)#& Ðeffects€of€these€powers€were€not€slight:€€French€Jews€became€politically€moderate,€religiouslyÐ D+à$( Ðcloseted,€and€disinclined€to€affiliate€with€radical€and/or€Jewish€causes.€€Yet€as€a€racially€markedÐ -¸&* Ðand€often€racially€disparaged€people,€Jews€lived€in€fear€of€their€vulnerability€to€tides€of€anti„Ð d ÐSemitism€(such€as€that€inciting€and€buoying€the€Dreyfus€Affair),€a€fear€that€is€itself€a€sign€of€theÐ <Ø Ðregulatory€work€of€tolerance,€even€if€this€work€is€increasingly€located€in€civil€society€rather€thanÐ  ° ÐChurch€or€state.€Ð ì ˆ Ðà  àThese€anti„Semitic€tides€evoke€the€second€sense€in€which€I€have€been€using€tolerance,€aÐ Ä ` Ðsense€which€also€brings€us€closer€to€the€histories€of€Jews€in€other€European€nations.€€TheseÐ œ8  Ðhistories€were€not€structured€by€early€formal€emancipation€or€liberal€republicanism€but€did€shareÐ t  Ðthe€managed€assimilation€and€racialization€we€have€seen€in€the€French€case.€€€Whether€ghettoizedÐ Lè  Ðor€educated,€heavily€regulated€(as€in€Germany)€or€simply€forced€to€adopt€surnames,€serve€in€theÐ $À Ðmilitary,€and€conduct€business€in€German€(as€in€Prussia),€the€various€approaches€to€Jews€acrossÐ ü˜ ÐEurope€in€the€nineteenth€century€converged€in€the€construal€of€€Jews€as€a€distinctive€people€whoÐ Ôp Ðnevertheless€had€to€be€fitted€into€the€consolidating€and€centralizing€nation„states,€thus€had€to€beÐ ¬H Ðreformed€as€well€as€tolerated.€€€Tolerance,€in€this€sense,€involved€a€state€and€civil€administrativeÐ „  Ðpractice€toward€a€people€who€had€to€be€incorporated€into€the€nation,€but€whose€racialÐ \ø Ðdistinctiveness€limited€their€participation€in€an€emerging€universalistic€formulation€of€man.€Ð 4 Ð ÐMoreover€because€Jewishness€was€racialized,€and€because€racialization€implicated€every€aspectÐ  "¨ Ðof€beingð!ðbody,€gait,€sexuality,€gesture,€soul,€mental€capacity,€dispositionð!ðthe€object€of€€toleranceÐ ä#€  Ðwas€discursively€relocated€from€belief€to€òòontoióó.€€Indeed,€belief€itself€was€now€both€separableÐ ¼%X" Ðfrom€yet€also€derivable€from€the€ontics€of€race,€a€separability€and€derivability€that€is€critical€inÐ ”'0!$ Ðformulating€subjects€of€tolerance€today.Ð l)#& ÐÌò ò2.€Womenó óÐ -¸&* Ðà  àAlongside€the€distinctive€requirements€of€state€consolidation€and€distinctive€discourses€ofÐ d ÐÔ_ÔracializationÔ_Ô€configuring€Jewish€emancipation€in€the€nineteenth€century,€certain€parallel€forcesÐ <Ø Ðconfigured€the€emancipation€of€women€in€the€nineteenth€century.€€There€was,€of€course,€noÐ  ° Ðhistorically€prior€Ô_ÔsubnationalÔ_Ô€or€transnational€community€of€women€that€had€to€be€broken€apartÐ ì ˆ Ðin€order€to€produce€women€as€citizen„subjects,€nor€did€women€pose€the€explicit€governanceÐ Ä ` Ðproblem€that€Jewish€communities€did.€€However,€women€were€emerging€from€their€ideologicalÐ œ8  Ðand€material€submersion€in€the€corporate€world€of€kinship€to€claim€entitlements€as€individuals,Ð t  Ðand€women€were€being€individuated€as€subjects€by€emerging€discourses€of€science,€medicine,Ð Lè  Ðsocial€work,€pedagogy,€and€Ô_ÔsexologyÔ_Ô.€€At€the€same€time,€new€discourses€of€gender€wereÐ $À Ðdeveloping€and€circulating,€discourses€which€bound€women€exhaustively€to€sexed€being,€muchÐ ü˜ Ðas€Ô_ÔracializationÔ_Ô€came€to€define€the€Jew.€€If€Ô_ÔjewishnessÔ_Ô€was€Ô_ÔracializedÔ_Ô€as€Jews€were€emancipatedÐ Ôp Ðand€if€that€Ô_ÔracializationÔ_Ô€was€deployed€to€mark€the€limits€of€emancipation,€it€is€also€true€thatÐ ¬H Ðamidst€the€debates€about€womenððs€emancipation,€sexual€difference€was€being€drawn€moreÐ „  Ðradically€and€inscribed€on€the€body€more€deeply€than€before.Ð \ø Ðà  àAccording€to€Thomas€Ô_ÔLaqueurÔ_Ô,€in€the€òòancien€regimeóó,€being€female€was€a€matter€of€statusÐ 4 Ð Ðrelated€to€activity€and€venue;€through€the€new€biological,€anthropological,€literary,€medical€andÐ  "¨ Ðpsychological€discourses,€it€was€reconfigured€as€a€matter€of€human€sexual€nature.€ò òGet€cite€ó ó€€LikeÐ ä#€  Ðrace,€this€sexed€nature€was€held€to€saturate€the€being.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€Thus,€writing€in€1803,€anthropologistÐ Ä%`" ÐJacques„Louis€Ô_ÔMoreauÔ_Ô€insisted€not€merely€upon€the€distinctiveness€of€the€sexes€but€argued€thatÐ d Ðð ðthey€are€different€in€every€conceivable€aspect€of€body€and€soul,€in€every€physical€and€moralÐ <Ø Ðaspect.ððÔ_Ô׃?h×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€€€Or,€in€the€words€of€a€mid„nineteenth€century€physician:Ð  ° Ðà0  àAll€parts€of€her€body€present€the€same€differences:€all€express€woman;€the€brow,€the€nose,Ð ì ˆ Ðthe€eyes,€the€mouth,€the€ears,€the€chin,€the€cheeks,€If€we€shift€our€view€to€the€inside,€andÐ Ä ` Ðwith€the€help€of€the€scalpel,€lay€bare€the€organs,€the€tissues,€the€fibers,€we€encounterÐ œ8  Ðeverywhere...the€same€difference.Ô_Ô׃@×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú17Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_ÔÐt (#(# Ðà  àDiscourses€about€sex€difference€are€hardly€the€only€forces€organizing€gender€andÐ Lè  Ðreconstituting€the€meaning€of€women€during€this€century.€€The€decline€of€feudal€and€pettyÐ $À Ðbourgeois€economies€and€the€full€onslaught€of€industrial€capitalism€wrought€enormous€changesÐ ü˜ Ðin€the€sexual€divisions€of€labor€inside€and€outside€the€family,€and€in€the€sexed€ownership€ofÐ Ôp Ðtrades€and€means€of€local€production.€The€sexual€division€of€labor€and€especially€theÐ ¬H Ðheterosexually€based€economic€partnerships€of€agricultural€economies€gave€way€to€an€order€inÐ „  Ðwhich€womenððs€and€menððs€laboring€hands€were€oftenð!ðnot€alwaysð!ðinterchangeable,€and€in€whichÐ \ø Ðwomen€lost€control€of€trades€such€as€dairy€and€brewing€that€had€heretofore€secured€them€smallÐ 4 Ð Ðbeachheads€of€economic€and€social€power.€€Thus€while€Thomas€Lacquer€argues€that€a€new€andÐ  "¨ Ðradical€sexual€dimorphism€emerges€in€response€to€ð ðpolitics....the€endless€new€struggles€for€powerÐ ä#€  Ðand€position€in€the€enormously€enlarged€public€sphere€of€the€eighteenth€and€particularly€theÐ ¼%X" ÐÔ_ÔpostrevolutionaryÔ_Ô€nineteenth€centuries,ðð€surely€of€equal€if€not€greater€importance€is€theÐ d Ðbreakdown€of€an€ideologically€naturalized€sexual€division€of€labor€in€many€domains,€and€theÐ <Ø Ðradically€reduced€productive€activity€associated€with€the€household.€€The€ontologically€sexedÐ  ° Ðbeing€is€articulated€as€decisive€at€the€very€historical€moment€when€practical€activity€and€venueÐ ì ˆ Ðbecame€less€so.Ô_Ô׃B×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú18Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€€€As€Ô_ÔproletarianizationÔ_Ô€tears€women€out€of€the€household€sphere€for€the€factory,Ð Ä ` Ðand€as€a€growing€class€of€bourgeois€women€are€increasingly€shorn€of€any€productive€economicÐ œ8  Ðfunction€at€all,€the€incitements€for€demanding€womenððs€emancipation€are€stoked€alongside€newÐ t  Ðdiscourses€of€female€sexual€difference€which€repel€those€demands.€Ð Lè  Ðà  àIn€sum,€the€extraordinary€capacity€of€capital€to,€in€Marxððs€phrase,€ð ðbatter€down€ChineseÐ $À ÐWalls,ðð€included€a€powerful€capacity€to€erase€Ô_ÔgenderedÔ_Ô€social€distinctions€and€transformÐ ü˜ ÐÔ_ÔgenderedÔ_Ô€social€spaces€heretofore€reproduced€by€sexual€divisions€of€labor€in€agriculturalÐ Ôp Ðeconomies.€€But€in€the€place€of€€these€modalities€of€making€and€organizing€gender€arose€aÐ ¬H Ðpervasively€sexed€body,€a€body€that€produced€a€new€foundation€for€subordination€rooted€inÐ „  Ðputative€difference,€a€body€whose€meanings€would€be€debated€for€their€implications€aboutÐ \ø Ðwomenððs€candidacy€for€political€and€social€equality.€€As€with€the€Ô_ÔracializationÔ_Ô€of€the€Jew,€thereÐ 4 Ð Ðare€First€Wave€feminists€who€embrace€the€radical€saturation€of€women€by€their€sex€and€there€areÐ  "¨ Ðothers€who€try€to€parse€and€contain€it.€€None€wholly€reject€it.€Ð ä#€  ÐÌò ò3.€€Equality€and€Toleranceó óÐ ”'0!$ Ðà  àTo€return€to€our€original€question:€how€did€the€Woman€Question€and€the€Jewish€QuestionÐ l)#& Ðtake€shape€within€a€common€rubric€of€emancipation€and€at€the€same€time€split€into€respectiveÐ D+à$( Ðprojects€of€equality€and€tolerance?€€€Nineteenth€century€European€nations€faced€the€problem€ofÐ d Ðfitting€two€historically€subordinated€or€excluded€human€types,€Jews€and€(Christian)€women,€intoÐ <Ø Ðan€emerging€universalist€humanist€€rhetoric€and€liberal€political€ideology€within€which€humanÐ  ° Ðsamenessð!ðÔ_ÔunderspecifiedÔ_Ô€but€fraught€with€tacit€normsð!ðis€taken€to€be€the€basis€of€equality.€€€TheÐ ì ˆ Ðdiscourses€of€subordination€and€exclusion€producing€Jewishness€and€gender€are€themselves€inÐ Ä ` Ðtransition,€and€these€discourses€are€both€an€effect€of€and€themselves€contribute€to€the€formulationÐ œ8  Ðof€the€problem€of€political€membership€for€Jews€and€women.€€That€is,€the€emerging€Ô_ÔracializationÔ_ÔÐ t  Ðof€the€Jew€and€the€relentless€Ô_ÔgenderingÔ_Ô€of€sexed€being€not€only€frame€the€debates€aboutÐ Lè  Ðemancipation€but€are€themselves€configured€by€these€debates,€a€mutual€production€process€thatÐ $À Ðbecomes€evident€as€we€examine€the€terms€of€these€debates€more€closely.€€Ð ü˜ Ðà  àò òFix€this€paragraph€ó óPrior€to€the€emergence€of€the€ð ðJewish€Questionðð€and€the€ð ðWomanÐ Ôp ÐQuestion,ðð€and€prior€to€the€political€discourses€of€equality€and€the€social€discourses€ofÐ ´P ÐÔ_ÔracializationÔ_Ô€and€gender€configuring€these€questions,€Jews€and€women€were€cast€not€simply€asÐ Œ( Ðdifferent€from€Christian€men,€but€as€bearing€a€difference€in€status€and€social€location€that€sharplyÐ d Ðdistinguished€them€from€Christian€men€and€from€their€privileges.€€Jews€were€a€nation€outside€theÐ < Ø Ðnation;€women€were€subsumed€in€the€household,€as€it€were,€underneath€the€nation..€€But€as€eachÐ "° Ðis€carried€by€the€new€formulations€of€abstract€citizenship€and€by€the€new€discourses€of€race€andÐ ì#ˆ  Ðgender€toward€eligibility€for€this€citizenship,€difference€is€not€simply€retained€but€relocated€fromÐ Ä%`" Ðstatus€and€location€to€ontology.€€€There€were€parallels€in€the€construction€of€difference€for€each,Ð œ'8!$ Ðespecially€in€the€extent€to€which€the€difference€was€understood€to€saturate€the€respective€body,Ð t)#& Ðmind,€and€soul€of€the€Jew€and€the€woman,€that€is,€to€exhaust€their€respective€identities,Ð L+è$( Ðsubjectivity,€and€potential€public€personae.€€But€parallel€is€not€Ô_ÔidenticalityÔ_Ô.€€Counter„intuitivelyÐ $-À&* Ðperhaps,€the€European€feminist€emancipation€movements€were€able€to€cast€womenððs€differenceÐ d Ðas€potentially€less€saturating€of€womenððs€existence€than€Jewish€emancipation€movements€couldÐ <Ø Ðachieve€for€Jewishness.€€Let€us€see€how€this€goes.€Ð  ° Ðà  àMary€Ô_ÔWollstonecraftÔ_Ô,€in€the€late€eighteenth€century,€and€John€Stuart€Mill€in€the€lateÐ ì ˆ Ðnineteenth,€both€€base€their€arguments€for€womenððs€equality€on€the€exploitation€of€a€strongÐ Ä ` ÐCartesian€split€between€body€and€mind€(although€neither€maintains€this€split€fully€orÐ œ8  Ðconsistently).€€There€is€no€sex€in€souls,€Ô_ÔWollstonecraftÔ_Ô€proclaims,€and€from€this€premise€developsÐ t  Ðher€insistence€that€women€are€first€and€foremost€human€beings,€not€sexed€beings.€€Since€ð ðvirtueÐ Lè  Ðhas€no€sex,ðð€and€the€highest€virtue€is€the€rational€use€of€the€mental€faculties,€then€as€Ô_ÔPoullainÔ_Ô€deÐ $À Ðla€Ô_ÔBarreÔ_Ô,€following€Descartes,€declared€in€1673,€€ð ðmind€has€no€sex".׃C×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú19Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€Ô_ÔWollstonecraftÔ_ÔððsÐ ü˜ Ðanalysis,€if€€women€and€men€share€the€same€moral€nature,€they€ought€to€share€the€same€moralÐ Ôp Ðstatus€and€rights.€€€The€fact€that€most€women€ð ðact€as€creatures€of€sensation€and€feeling€rather€thanÐ ¬H Ðas€rational€beings"€is€simply€the€consequence€of€a€faulty€education,€one€which€makes€womenÐ „  Ð"plumed€and€feathered€birds"€rather€than€morally€upright€beings.Ô_Ô׃ @×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú20Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ôà È àÐ \ø Ðà  àWomen€and€men€both€have€the€capacity€for€ð ðeducated€understanding,ðð€a€capacity€thatÐ d Ðincludes€worldly€knowledge€and€a€knowledge€of€Godððs€scheme€to€direct€and€temper€the€passions.€Ð <Ø ÐÔ_ÔWollstonecraftÔ_Ô€toys€with€the€idea€that€the€two€sexes€may€have€different€amounts€of€suchÐ  ° Ðunderstanding,€as€a€consequence€of€their€differences€in€strength,€but€they€have€the€same€kind„„Ð ì ˆ Ðvirtue€is€androgynous€because€mind€and€soul€are.Ô_Ô׃N×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú21Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€€Liberty€and€education,€which€togetherÐ Ä ` Ðproduce€autonomous€reasoning€capacity,€are€the€mother€of€virtue,€and€it€is€thus€liberty€andÐ œ8  Ðeducation€that€must€be€equally€available€to€women€and€men.€€In€short,€when€they€are€engaged€inÐ t  Ðmental€deliberation€and€other€practices€of€moral€virtue,€women€are€not€women€at€all€but€simplyÐ Lè  Ðreasoning€beings.€€€But€what€of€the€sex€difference€from€which€Ô_ÔWollstonecraftÔ_Ô€abstracts€in€order€toÐ $À Ðmake€this€argument?€€Where€does€that€sex€difference€live€and€what€are€the€implications€of€itsÐ ü˜ Ðdesignated€habitat€for€womenððs€civic€and€political€equality?€€We€shall€return€to€this€matterÐ Ôp Ðshortly.Ð ¬H Ðà  àJohn€Stuart€Mill,€remarkably,€makes€little€reference€to€womenððs€bodies€in€òòOn€theÐ „  ÐSubjection€of€Womenóó,€save€for€the€terrible€degradation€he€imagines€women€to€suffer€when€theyÐ \ø Ðmust€have€sex€with€men€(husbands)€they€donððt€like€or€respect.׃P|×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú22Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€ò ò€ó óMillððs€argument€for€womenððsÐ 4 Ð Ðfreedom€is€pinned€entirely€on€their€intellectual€potential,€even€as€he€argues€that€theirÐ "° Ðinstitutionalized€subordination€originated€historically€from€their€physical€weakness.€€What€allowsÐ ì#ˆ  Ðhim€to€work€both€sides€of€the€argument€about€womenððs€bodies€(weaker)€and€womenððs€mindsÐ d Ð(potentially€equal)€€is€not€only€a€Cartesian€metaphysics€but€a€progressivist€insistence€that€the€ageÐ <Ø Ðof€bodies€and€physicality€as€determinants€of€merit€and€place€is€finished,€as€past€as€the€age€ofÐ  ° Ðblind€adherence€to€custom€and€tradition€or€rule€by€despotic€monarchs.׃Q×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú23Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€What€makes€womenððsÐ ì ˆ Ðsubordination€a€historical€relic,€hence€wholly€illegitimate,€is€its€basis€in€a€physical€difference€at€aÐ Ä ` Ðtime€when€all€other€contemporary€social€and€political€practicesð!ðfrom€the€abolition€of€slavery€toÐ œ8  Ðthe€repudiation€of€social€rank€as€a€criteria€for€rights€or€suffrageð!ðsignify€a€rejection€ofÐ t  Ðstratification€by€physical€difference€or€circumstances€of€birth.׃R|×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú24Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€In€the€current€age,€according€toÐ Lè  ÐMill,€what€brokers€legitimate€distinction€is€mind,€talent,€capacity,€and€ambition,€all€set€loose€inÐ $À Ðan€open€field€of€competition;€this€age€has€learned€as€well€the€importance,€to€the€individual€and€toÐ ü˜ Ðthe€society€as€a€whole,€of€choosing€oneððs€own€life€course€and€oneððs€own€governors.׃0×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú25Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀РÔp Ðà  àTaken€together,€Mill€and€Ô_ÔWollstonecraftÔ_Ô€can€be€seen€to€argue€for€a€feminine€subjectivityÐ ¬H Ðthat€is€at€once€androgynous€and€differentð!ðandrogynous€in€the€rational,€civic,€and€public€order€ofÐ „  Ðthings€where€mind€alone€matters,€and€saturated€with€its€sex€in€the€private€realm€where€bodies,Ð \ø Ðtemperaments,€emotional€bearing,€and€ð ðinstinctððare€thought€Ô_ÔtoÔ_Ô€prevail.€€Neither€rejects€theÐ 4 Ð Ðsexualization€of€gender€prevalent€in€the€age;€rather,€each€contests€only€the€Ô_ÔtotalizingÔ_Ô€reach€of€thisÐ  "¨ Ðsexualization€and€draws€upon€Enlightenment€rationalism€and€(as€we€shall€see)€a€certain€CartesianÐ ä#€  Ðand€bourgeois€splitting€of€the€modern€subject€to€argue€for€the€sexlessness€of€public€sphereÐ d Ðexistence.€€Indeed,€the€reassurance€both€Ô_ÔWollstonecraftÔ_Ô€and€Mill€offer€to€those€potentiallyÐ <Ø Ðalarmed€by€the€specter€of€emancipated€women€lies€in€their€confirmation€of€womenððs€heterosexualÐ  ° Ðand€maternal€identity€in€the€domestic€sphere,€an€identity€which€is€treated€as€natural€even€if€€notÐ ì ˆ Ðexhaustive€of€womenððs€existence.€€Although€both€Ô_ÔWollstonecraftÔ_Ô€and€Mill€advance€theÐ Ä ` Ðpossibility€that€women€ought€to€be€able€to€choose€whether€to€marry€or€not,€neither€can€tarry€longÐ œ8  Ðwith€the€figure€of€the€unmarried€woman;€both€return€incessantly€to€the€assumption€of€womenððsÐ t  Ðmarried€and€maternal€state.€€Moreover,€both€spill€a€great€deal€of€ink€on€the€ways€thatÐ Lè  Ðimprovements€in€womanððs€education€and€liberty€will€improve€her€wifely€and€maternal€capacities„Ð $À Є€she€will€be€more€enlightened,€less€shrewish,€more€straightforward,€less€conniving,€a€betterÐ ü˜ Ðmodel€for€the€children,€less€of€an€embarrassment€to€them.€€All€of€these€advantages,€however,€areÐ Ôp Ðto€one€side€of€the€central€point€that€women€will€not€cease€to€be€wives€and€mothers,€andÐ ¬H Ðpotentially€even€subordinates€in€the€household,€by€virtue€of€their€emancipation.€€Through€theÐ „  Ðdivision€of€mind€and€body,€virtue€and€daily€existence€upon€which€each€premises€their€arguments,Ð \ø Ðwomen€can€be€women€in€private,€humans€in€public.€Ð 4 Ð Ðà  àOf€course€the€counter„argument€to€Millððs€and€Ô_ÔWollstonecraftÔ_Ôððs€position,€ubiquitous€in€theÐ  "¨ Ðage€and€against€which€both€are€working,€is€that€the€sexual€and/or€reproductive€functions€ofÐ ä#€  Ðwomenððs€bodies€òòdoóó€fully€saturate€womenððs€nature;€this€is€exactly€what€the€strong€version€of€theÐ ¼%X" Ðnew€sex€difference€discourses€establish.€€€At€the€extreme€is€Rousseauððs€contention€that€everyÐ ”'0!$ Ðelement€of€womanððs€existence€is€conditioned€by€her€sexualityð!ðfrom€her€inherent€lack€ofÐ l)#& Ðâ âauthenticity€and€òòamour€de€Ô_ÔsoiÔ_Ô„Ô_ÔmemeÔ_Ôóó€to€her€natural€strategic€deployment€of€sexuality€to€captureÐ D+à$( Ðand€hold€men.׃E×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú26Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€Similarly,€Hegelððs€reduction€of€women€to€creatures€of€pure€immanence€isÐ d Ðâ ârooted€in€their€reproductive€capacities€while€his€argument€that€woman€is€ethically€fulfilled€in€theÐ <Ø Ðfamily€pertains€to€what€he€characterizes€as€her€natural€passivity€in€love,€her€unique€capacity€toÐ  ° Ðboth€lose€and€achieve€her€individuality€in€and€through€a€male€subject.€€For€both€Hegel€andÐ ì ˆ ÐRousseau,€not€just€womenððs€activities€and€proper€venue€but€womenððs€minds€and€womenððs€virtueÐ Ä ` Ðdiffer€radically€from€that€of€men.€€Indeed,€what€otherwise€diverse€late€eighteenth€and€nineteenthÐ œ8  Ðcentury€anti„feminist€arguments€bear€in€common€is€the€notion€that€womanððs€nature,€and€theÐ t  Ðactivities€and€entitlements€appropriate€to€it,€is€fully€determined€by€sex€difference,€that€woman€isÐ Lè  Ðfully€saturated€by€this€difference.Ô_Ô׃L×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú27Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€€This€is€the€saturation€of€woman€by€her€ð ðdifferenceðð€that€theÐ $À ÐEnlightenment€feminists€resist.€€As€Joan€W.€Scott€recounts€in€her€study€of€nineteenth€centuryÐ ü˜ ÐFrench€feminists,€ð ðthey€argued€that€there€was€neither€a€logical€nor€an€empirical€connectionÐ Ôp Ðbetween€the€sex€of€oneððs€body€and€oneððs€ability€to€engage€in€politics,€that€sexual€difference€wasÐ d Ðnot€an€indicator€of€social,€intellectual,€or€political€capacity.ðð€×ƒM×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú28Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Nineteenth€century€Europe,€then,Ð <Ø Ðdebated€the€ð ðWoman€Questionðð€from€a€roughly€common,€and€strikingly€new€ontology€of€gender,Ð  ° Ðone€in€which€elaborate€sex€difference€was€taken€to€be€a€fact€while€the€reach€and€significance€ofÐ ì ˆ Ðthis€difference€was€contested,€particularly€from€a€Cartesian€perspective€that€permits€of€theÐ Ä ` Ðseparability€of€mind€and€body,€a€separability€that€like€abstract€rights€and€liberties€themselves,Ð œ8  Ðwas€difficult€to€elaborate€for€men€while€refusing€to€women.€€Ð t  Ðà  àBut€it€is€not€only€Ô_ÔCartesianismÔ_Ô€that€permits€this€splitting€off€of€the€androgynous€mindÐ Lè  Ðfrom€the€otherwise€wholly€sexed€being.€€And€it€is€not€only€the€abstract€character€of€liberalÐ $À Ðpersonhood€itself€that€creates€a€wedge€for€feminism€in€the€new€formulation€of€citizenship.Ð ü˜ ÐRather,€if€the€sex€difference€always€recurs€to€the€body€in€some€way,€it€is€precisely€this€seeminglyÐ Ôp Ðobstinate€fact€that€makes€possible€a€humanist€feminism€in€a€liberal€idiom€which€both€disunifiesÐ ¬H Ðor€splits€the€female€subject€and€abstracts€from€the€body€to€make€its€claims€for€womenððs€equality.€Ð „  ÐThis€Ô_ÔdisunificationÔ_Ô€or€splitting€operates€spatially,€that€is€by€literally€diversifying€the€ontology€ofÐ \ø Ðwoman,€parceling€out€this€ontology€for€different€social€spaces€in€which€occur€different€activitiesÐ 4 Ð Ðand€duties.€€Thus,€the€feminism€of€Ô_ÔWollstonecraftÔ_Ô€and€Mill€on€the€one€hand€privatizes€the€sexedÐ  "¨ Ðfemale€bodyð!ðleaving€it€to€individual€men,€as€it€were„„òòandóó€abstracts€from€womenððs€embodiedÐ ä#€  Ðexistence€to€make€claims€on€behalf€of€womenððs€capacity€for€public€life,€a€capacity€that€makesÐ ¼%X" Ðwomen€eligible€for€education,€rights,€and€above€all,€citizenship.€€€Ð ”'0!$ Ðà  àThese€moves€to€divide€and€abstract€the€subject€from€its€embodied€dwelling€are€typical€ofÐ l)#& Ðthe€age€and€by€no€means€unique€to€the€order€of€gender.€€The€divided€subject€born€withÐ d Ðmodernityð!ð€particular/universal,€subjective/objective,€private/public,€civic€(economic)€/political,Ð <Ø Ðreligious/secular,òò€bourgeois/Ô_ÔcitoyenÔ_Ôóóð!ðis€the€very€subject€that€can€be€gathered€under€aÐ  ° Ðuniversalizing€Ô_ÔpoliticalÔ_Ô€rubric€such€as€ð ðequality,€liberty,€fraternityðð€while€living€in€a€civic€andÐ ì ˆ Ðeconomic€order€ordered€by€Ô_ÔinqualityÔ_Ô,€unfreedom€and€individualism.€€The€abstracted€subject€is€theÐ Ä ` Ðone€represented€as€free,€equal,€and€Ô_ÔsolidaristicÔ_Ô€in€state€and€legal€discourse,€abstracted€from€itsÐ œ8  Ðconcrete€existenceð!ðconstrained,€socially€stratified,€atomized,€and€alienatedð!ðin€everyday€life.€€InÐ t  Ðshort,€the€figure€of€man€to€which€Ô_ÔWollstonecraftÔ_Ô€and€Mill€make€recourse€for€their€argumentsÐ Lè  Ðabout€womenð!ðman€split€in€his€activities€and€consciousness,€and€man€abstracted€from€his€real,Ð $À Ðeveryday,€embodied€existence€in€the€course€of€his€representation€before€the€law€and€in€theÐ ü˜ Ðstateð!ðis€the€dominant€figure€of€the€age.€€€As€Marx€argues€in€ð ðThe€Jewish€Question,ðð€the€modernÐ Ôp Ðconstitutional€order,€the€Ô_ÔpostrevolutionaryÔ_Ô€body€politic,€is€not€a€concrete€ensemble€of€embodied,Ð ¬H Ðlocated€beings,€but€a€representation€of€abstract€persons.€€If€citizenship€and€rights€are€premisedÐ „  Ðupon€this€abstract,€disembodied€figure€of€man,€this€is€also€the€basis€upon€which€womenððsÐ \ø Ðenfranchisement€can€be€claimed.€€If€man€has€no€body€in€public,€but€only€exists€abstractly,Ð 4 Ð Ðdiscursively,€through€mediated€voicing€and€representation,€then€woman€need€not€have€a€body€inÐ  "¨ Ðpublic€either€and€the€sexualization€of€gender€can€be€set€aside€as€a€problem.€€Thus,€the€sexÐ ä#€  Ðdifference,€that€which€makes€women€Ô_ÔwomenÔ_Ô,€need€not€accompany€women€into€the€public€orderÐ ¼%X" Ðwhere€we€are€all€abstractions,€€where€we€are€all€split€off€from€our€private,€economic,€or€civilÐ ”'0!$ Ðâ âexistence.€€€In€short,€womenððs€difference€is€not,€according€to€this€kind€of€feminism,€a€differenceÐ l)#& Ðthat€need€appear€in€public.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú29Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð d Ðâ âà  àBut€why€do€we€not€see€the€same€argument€made€on€behalf€of€Jews?€€What€is€the€castingÐ <Ø Ðof€the€ð ðJewish€differenceðð€that€permits€the€slide€from€ð ðemancipationðð€to€toleranceð!ðwith€theÐ  ° Ðlatterððs€implications€of€a€permanent,€insoluble,€differenceð!ðrather€than€equality?Ô_Ô׃T×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú30Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€€€If€modernÐ ì ˆ Ðcitizenship€is€premised€upon€man€as€man,€not€as€he€actually€lives€and€works,€but€as€a€potentiallyÐ Ä ` Ðdivisible€and€abstract€being,€why€cannot€the€Jew€be€split€off€from€or€abstracted€from€her/hisÐ œ8  ÐJudaism€to€become€a€rights„bearing€citizen€with€the€same€relative€conceptual€ease€exhibited€byÐ t  Ðlate€eighteenth€and€nineteenth€century€feminism?€€€There€were,€of€course,€those€(e.g.,€leftÐ Lè  ÐÔ_ÔHegelianÔ_Ô€Bruno€Bauer,€Marxððs€famous€foil€in€ð ðOn€the€Jewish€Questionðð)€who€argued€that€JewsÐ $À Ðcould€be€dealt€with€in€precisely€this€fashion.€€From€this€perspective,€Ô_ÔracializationÔ_Ô€of€the€Jew€wasÐ ü˜ Ðno€more€determining€than€sexualization€of€the€woman:€€€Jews€could€be€and€were€enfranchised€onÐ Ôp Ðthe€condition€of€assimilation,€on€condition€that€they€shed€identifying€and€constitutive€JewishÐ ¬H Ðpractices€or€at€least€on€the€condition€that€these€practices€became€completely€private.€Ð „  Ðà  àBut€it€is€already€telling€that€there€is€a€qualifier€here,€i.e.,€that€emancipation€was€tacitly€orÐ \ø Ðexpressly€dependent€upon€assimilation,€which€is€to€say,€upon€transformation€of€the€Jew.€Such€aÐ 4 Ð Ðmove€was€never€made€in€the€debates€about€the€Woman€Questionð!ðwomen€did€not€give€upÐ d Ðanything€in€order€to€become€candidates€for€emancipation.€€Indeed,€what€could€they€be€pressed€toÐ <Ø Ðsurrender€in€order€to€become€more€acceptable€members€of€the€nation,€in€order€to€become€moreÐ  ° Ðlike€men,€in€order€to€gain€proximity€to€if€not€inclusion€within€the€universal?€€Any€effort€to€de„sexÐ ì ˆ Ðthemselves€would€be€seen€as€making€them€monstrous,€exactly€what€anti„feminists€accusedÐ Ä ` Ðfeminism€of€doing.€€Thus,€emancipation€itself€already€means€something€different€for€Jews€andÐ œ8  Ðfor€women,€that€is,€even€with€emancipation,€the€tolerance€ð ðdealðð€was€already€in€place€for€Jews€inÐ t  Ða€way€that€it€was€not€for€women,€where€a€different€set€of€powers€will€be€seen€to€sustain€theirÐ Lè  Ðdifference,€and€their€subordination€through€it.Ð $À Ðà  àFor€non„assimilated€Jews,€the€arguments€against€enfranchisement€emerging€from€the€mid„Ð ü˜ Ð19th€century€German€debates€on€this€question€can€be€divided€into€three:€1)the€Jew€has€fealty€toÐ Ôp Ðanother€(higher)€god,€and€another€(higher)€legal€order€which€preempts€his€fealty€to€the€ChristianÐ ¬H Ðor€secular€state,€2)the€Jew€lives€a€ððpartialðð€(Jewish)€life,€does€not€conceive€of€himself€as€the€partÐ „  Ðof€humanity€in€general,€but€rather€as€belonging€to€the€Jewish€portion€of€humanity,€hence€does€notÐ \ø Ðparticipate€in€the€universality€the€modern€state€is€held€to€embody,€3)the€Jewish€religion€cannotÐ 4 Ð Ðeasily€be€rendered€€a€purely€private€affairð!ðSabbath€and€holiday€requirements,€as€well€as€publicÐ  "¨ Ðworship€and€prayer,€contour€the€daily€civic€life€of€the€Jew€and€thus€prevent€Judaism€from€theÐ ä#€  Ðeligibility€for€tolerance,€available€to€Protestant€sects,€in€which€religion€can€be€rendered€a€purelyÐ ¼%X" Ðindividual€and€private€order€of€belief.€òòóó€Judaism€as€practice€combined€with€Jewishness€as€a€racialÐ ”'0!$ Ðdifference€together€cancel€the€possibility€of€containing€the€Jewishness€of€the€Jew€in€the€privateÐ l)#& Ðsphere;€to€the€extent€that€Jewishness€and€Judaism€saturate€the€being€and€daily€practices€of€theÐ D+à$( ÐJew,€and€subtend€the€Jew€through€Jewish€community,€law,€and/or€ethnic€affiliation,€they€leakÐ -¸&* Ðinto€the€domain€where€the€abstract€and€universal€equality,€liberty€and€community€of€man€are€heldÐ d Ðto€reign.Ô_Ô׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú31Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_ÔÐ <Ø Ðà  àBut€if€these€are€the€arguments€against€emancipating€or€enfranchising€non„assimilatedÐ  ° ÐJews,€arguments€that€all€amount€to€refusing€the€incorporation€of€a€nation€within€a€nation,€how€isÐ ì ˆ Ðit€that€assimilated€Jews€could€be€offered€forms€of€ð ðemancipationðð€that€nonetheless€left€themÐ Ä ` Ðvulnerable€to€Ô_ÔantiSemiticÔ_Ô€state€as€well€as€civil€practices,€thus€signaling€that€this€emancipationÐ œ8  Ðopened€onto€a€regulatory€regime€of€tolerance€rather€than€equality.€€To€be€sure,€this€regime€ofÐ t  Ðtolerance€was€a€different€creature€from€that€administered€by€the€seventeenth€and€eighteenthÐ Lè  Ðcentury€Edicts€of€Tolerance€in€Austria€and€elsewhereð!ðit€had€begun€its€migration€from€the€state€toÐ $À Ðthe€social€as€the€site€of€its€emanation,€and€it€also€was€beginning€to€attach€to€individuals€ratherÐ ü˜ Ðthan€to€Ô_ÔsubnationalÔ_Ô€groups.€€But€tolerance€rather€than€equality€it€was,€as€ensuing€episodes€of€stateÐ Ôp Ðand€civic€intolerance,€in€which€Jews€could€lose€privileges,€be€stripped€of€rights,€and€beÐ ¬H ÐÔ_ÔghettoizedÔ_Ô,€would€make€clear.€€Ð „  Ðà  àAt€this€point,€the€implications€of€the€differences€between€the€discourses€of€Ô_ÔracializationÔ_ÔÐ \ø Ðand€sexualization€become€clear.€€€Some€of€these€implications€may€be€grasped€through€FoucaultððsÐ 4 Ð Ðdiscussion,€in€òòThe€Order€of€Things,óó€of€the€epistemic€shift€between€the€early€modern€andÐ  "¨ Ðclassically€modern€periods.€€In€the€former,€Foucault€argues,€knowledge€is€based€upon€manifest€orÐ ä#€  Ðvisible€signs;€in€the€latter€(the€period€we€are€considering),€it€comes€to€be€rooted€in€theÐ ¼%X" Ðpresumption€of€a€generally€invisible€organic€structure€of€things.€€If€Foucault€is€right€about€theÐ ”'0!$ Ðhigh€modern€Ô_ÔepistemeÔ_Ô,€only€in€the€nineteenthòòóó€century€does€it€become€possible€to€argue€that€theÐ l)#& Ðfemale€body,€for€all€its€putative€visible€difference,€does€òònotóó€carry€the€complete€code€for€womenððsÐ d Ðnature€and€capacities,€or€more€precisely,€that€the€body€is€not€the€key€to€the€mind€or€soul€of€theÐ <Ø Ðwoman.€€€Rather,€feminists€argue,€the€body€becomes€precisely€that€which€must€be€seen€past€orÐ  ° Ðseen€through€for€womenððs€soul€and€mental€capacities€to€be€made€manifest,€just€as€anti„feministsÐ ì ˆ Ðargued€that€the€Ô_ÔgenderingÔ_Ô€of€the€female€sex,€determined€by€its€reproductive€function,€was€carriedÐ Ä ` Ðin€every€dimension€of€this€being.€€No€one,€in€other€words,€argued€directly€from€bodilyÐ œ8  Ðappearances€to€ontologyð!ðrather,€appearances€were€as€likely€to€belie€as€to€express€aÐ t  Ðcomprehensive€ontology.€€€However,€if€the€index€of€the€Ô_ÔracializedÔ_Ô€Jew€is€blood,€and€the€essenceÐ Lè  Ðof€the€Jew,€soul,€then€Ô_ÔracializationÔ_Ô€is€already€a€discourse€working€from€the€inside€(organicÐ $À Ðstructure)€out€(appearances).€€In€the€nineteenth€òòóócentury€Ô_ÔepistemeÔ_Ô,€abstracting€from€the€body€toÐ ü˜ Ðarrive€at€an€Ô_ÔungenderedÔ_Ô€mind€or€soulòòóó€is€a€possibility;€abstracting€from€blood€and€soul€to€arrive€atÐ Ôp Ðthe€nature€of€a€being€is€an€oxymoron.€Ð ¬H Ðà  àBut€the€difference€between€Ô_ÔracializationÔ_Ô€and€sexualization€is€not€all€that€is€at€stake€here,Ð „  Ðthat€is,€we€are€not€witnessing€differences€in€the€ways€that€Jewishness€and€femininity€areÐ \ø Ðdiscursively€inscribed€on€and€in€individual€bodies.€€The€specter€of€tolerance€is€also€raised€by€theÐ 4 Ð Ðperceived€association€among€these€bodies.€€While€Ô_ÔracializationÔ_Ô,€in€contrast€with€nationhood,Ð  "¨ Ðcarries€the€potential€to€render€Jews€in€the€image€of€the€sovereign€individual€characteristic€of€theÐ ä#€  Ðage,€even€Ô_ÔdecorporatizedÔ_Ô€Jews€are€conceived€as€a€people€apart.€€Indeed,€the€Ô_ÔdecorporatizationÔ_ÔÐ ¼%X" Ðentailed€in€the€pressures€to€assimilate,€and€required€for€the€first€order€of€formal€emancipation€andÐ ”'0!$ Ðtoleration,€met€its€limit€in€the€Ô_ÔracializationÔ_Ô€of€Jews,€a€trope€which€links€them€naturally€to€oneÐ l)#& Ðanother€and€instantiates€their€association.€€Women,€by€contrast,€while€conceived€as€ð ða€sex,ðð€areÐ D+à$( Ðalso€conceived€as€individual€complements€to€individual€menð!ðif€they€are€ontologically€similar,Ð -¸&* Ðthis€does€not€imply€their€political€or€social€relatedness,€their€intra„group€solidarity.€€€Among€otherÐ d Ðthings,€tolerance€responds€to€the€moment€in€liberalism€when€individualism€falters€as€a€principleÐ <Ø Ðof€demarcation,€and€when€equality„as„sameness€falters€as€a€justice€principle;€this€is€one€of€theÐ  ° Ðthings€that€makes€tolerance€a€supplement€to€liberalism€rather€than€one€of€its€first€principles,€òòpaceóóÐ ì ˆ Ðcontemporary€declarations€about€tolerance€as€the€very€essence€of€liberalism.€€Political€toleranceÐ Ä ` Ðemerges€when€group€difference€is€perceived€to€pose€a€challenge€or€threat€to€the€definition€orÐ œ8  Ðbinding€features€of€the€whole:€in€their€dispersal,€women€do€not€represent€such€a€threat€whereas,Ð t  Ðin€their€association,€Jews€do.€€Even€the€assimilation€and€Ô_ÔracializationÔ_Ô€of€Jews€could€notÐ Lè  Ðcompletely€attenuate€this€threat.Ð $À Ðà  àWe€have,€then,€arrived€at€a€counter„intuitive€way€of€conceiving€one€important€difference€Ð ü˜ Ðbetween€the€issues€posed€by€the€emancipation€of€Jews€and€women,€and€consequently€of€theÐ Ôp Ðprospects€for€inclusion,€tolerance€or€equality€held€out€to€each.€€There€is€not€only€the€question€ofÐ ¬H Ðthe€lingering€Jewish€nation,€conjured€by€the€continued€presence€in€cities€as€well€as€in€theÐ „  Ðcountryside€of€Ô_ÔunassimilatedÔ_Ô€Jews;€rather,€white€supremacy€combined€with€Christian€hegemonyÐ \ø Ðin€Euro„Atlantic€states€meant€that€even€assimilated€Jews€could€not€be€abstracted€from€theirÐ 4 Ð Ðdifference€to€participate€in€a€universal€order,€whereas€(Christian)€women€apparently€can.€€In€aÐ  "¨ Ðbodiless€public€saturated€with€Christian€norms,€(Christian)€women€can€achieve€a€formal€legalÐ ä#€  Ðequality€while€Jews,€even€when€they€are€enfranchised€and€accorded€rights,€will€still€be€toleratedÐ ¼%X" Ð(or€not)€in€their€difference.€€In€a€seeming€reversal€of€common€sense,€when€it€comes€toÐ ”'0!$ Ðparticipation€in€the€life€of€the€state,€the€construction€of€sexual€difference€appeared€less€indivisibleÐ l)#& Ðand€less€obdurate€than€the€prevailing€construction€of€the€Jewish€differenceÐ D+à$( Ðà  àOne€account,€then,€of€the€emergence€of€a€discourse€of€equality€for€women,€and€ofÐ -¸&* Ðtolerance€for€Jews,€reveals€tolerance€to€be€the€sign€of€a€discursively€established,€obstinate,€andÐ d Ðpervasive€difference€that€cannot€be€turned€aside€or€assimilated€in€public€life,€that€cannot€beÐ <Ø Ðabstracted€from,€and€that€forms€the€basis€for€communityð!ðimagined€or€Ô_ÔliteralizedÔ_Ô,€minimal€orÐ  ° Ðsubstantialð!ðapart€from€the€nation„state.€€Tolerance€marks€Ô_ÔunassimilabilityÔ_Ô€to€a€Ô_ÔhypostasizedÔ_ÔÐ ì ˆ Ðuniversal,€and€Jewsð!ðas€a€nation€or€as€a€raceð!ðfigure€such€Ô_ÔunassimilabilityÔ_Ô.€€But€we€cannot€beÐ Ä ` Ðcompletely€satisfied€with€this€formulation.€€On€the€one€hand,€€it€overstates€the€Ô_ÔassimilabilityÔ_Ô€ofÐ œ8  Ðwomen€into€a€humanist€universalism€and€especially€into€the€public€and€economic€life€of€modernÐ t  Ðconstitutional€orders€€We€know€that€deep€anxieties€about€sexual€difference€persist€in€theseÐ Lè  Ðdomains,€and€we€know€that€sexual€difference€is€often€far€more€of€a€barrier€than€religion,€evenÐ $À Ðthan€religious€orthodoxy,€to€participation€in€normatively€masculine€regimes.€€€On€the€other€hand,Ð ü˜ Ðthis€argument€also€understates€what€assimilation€òòandóó€Ô_ÔracializationÔ_Ô€make€possible€by€way€ofÐ Ôp Ðprivatizing€or€eliminating€Jewish€practice€and€belief€and€detaching€the€individual€Jew€from€aÐ ¬H Ðcommunity€of€Jews.€€Even€if€it€was€not€completely€successful,€the€project€of€detaching€the€JewÐ „  Ðfrom€a€transnational€identity€and€fealty,€and€of€producing€the€Jew€as€a€European€citizen€subjectÐ \ø Ðshould€have€largely€neutered€political€concern€with€Jewish€differenceð!ðall€that€should€have€beenÐ 4 Ð Ðleft€was€scattered€social€prejudice.€€So€I€want€to€stir€different€ground€now.Ð  "¨ Ðà  àIf,€according€to€Blackstone€and€Kant,€women€are€naturally€ð ðconcluded€by€their€husbandsððÐ ä#€  Ðif€husband€and€wife€are€ð ðone€person€in€the€law,ðð€what€is€it€that€makes€woman€seem€soÐ ¼%X" ÐÔ_ÔincorporableÔ_Ô,€that€makes€her€available€to€being€concluded€or€represented€by€him?€€€There€wouldÐ ”'0!$ Ðappear€to€be€only€two€possibilities€hereð!ð€similitude€or€natural€subordination€within€an€ontologicalÐ l)#& Ðhierarchy.€€€Woman€cannot€be€incorporated€by€man,€cannot€be€represented€by€him,€as€a€foreignÐ D+à$( Ðbeing€of€substance,€as€true€Ô_ÔalterityÔ_Ô,€but€only€as€that€which€is€either€quite€similar€to€him€orÐ -¸&* Ðcompletely€subordinate€to€him.€€€If€Ô_ÔLaqueurÔ_Ô€is€partly€right€in€his€thesis€about€the€shift,€during€theÐ d Ðeighteenth€century,€from€a€one„sex€to€a€two„sex€model€of€gender,€then€we€are€not€dealing€withÐ <Ø Ðsimilitude.€€As€we€have€seen,€the€similitude€asserted€even€by€feminists€in€this€period€òòóópertainsÐ  ° Ðonly€to€the€realm€of€mind,€virtue,€and€abstract€citizenshipð!ðthe€argument€is€not€that€women€are€theÐ ì ˆ Ðsame€as€menòò€tout€courtóó€but€that€rationality,€virtue,€and€citizenship€have€no€sex,€are€not€embodied.€Ð Ä ` ÐFeminists€had€to€disembody€these€qualities€from€their€bearers€in€order€to€make€their€arguments.€€Ð œ8  ÐThus,€womanððs€differenceð!ðas€body,€as€maternity,€as€sexuality,€as€subject€and€sign€of€theÐ t  Ðhouseholdð!ðis€a€candidate€for€natural€subordination€(some€feminists€and€anti„feminists€used€theÐ Lè  Ðlanguage€of€ð ðcomplementarityðð€here).€€Female€difference,€within€a€presumed€heterosexualÐ $À Ðontological€and€sexual€order,€is€thus€Ô_ÔincorporableÔ_Ô€by€men€to€the€extent€that€it€is€a€difference€ofÐ ü˜ Ðinherent€subjection.€€Moreover,€within€a€heterosexual€matrix,€individual€women€can€be€claimed,Ð Ôp Ðð ðconcludedðð€or€represented€by€individual€men,€and€their€Ô_ÔalterityÔ_Ô€can€be€thus€secured€at€the€sameÐ ¬H Ðtime€it€is€politically€resolved.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú32Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€By€contrast,€the€Jewish€difference,€however€saturated€with€signsÐ „  Ðof€inferiority€within€a€Christian€hegemonic€order,€cannot€be€assimilated€in€this€fashion:€itÐ \ø Ðremains€more€unruly,€less€controllable,€precisely€because€it€is€represented€by€men€and€mediatesÐ 4 Ð Ðmenððs€relations€with€one€another,€notwithstanding€its€matrilineal€descent€structure.Ð  "¨ Ðà  àAnother€way€to€see€this€point€involves€turning€slightly€from€the€public/private€axis€as€theÐ ä#€  Ðvehicle€of€subordination,€and€focusing€instead€upon€the€social€ordering€achieved€by€a€sexualÐ ¼%X" Ðdivision€of€labor.€€As€critics€of€liberal€feminism€have€often€pointed€out,€when€women€are€madeÐ ”'0!$ Ðcandidates€for€citizenship€and€rights,€a€Ô_ÔheterosocialÔ_Ô€division€of€labor€and€association€is€by€noÐ d Ðmeans€called€into€question.€€Indeed,€both€Ô_ÔWollstonecraftÔ_Ô€and€Mill€anxiously€reassured€theirÐ <Ø Ðreaders€that€legal€gender€neutralityð!ðwomenððs€acquisition€of€economic,€civil,€and€political€rights„„Ð  ° Ðis€not€a€ticket€to€gender€integration€in€most€of€the€substantive€domains€of€life.€€With€legalÐ ì ˆ Ðequality,€social€and€economic€sex€segregation€persists€and€so€literally€domesticates€the€effects€ofÐ Ä ` Ðwomenððs€enfranchisement€as€citizens.€€An€official€policy€of€complete€religious€neutrality,Ð œ8  Ðhowever,€does€promise€and€promote€such€integration:€once€Jewish€men€are€fully€enfranchisedÐ t  Ðand€full€bearers€of€rights,€the€ð ðJewish€differenceðð€lives€on€institutionally€only€in€anÐ Lè  ÐÔ_ÔepiphenomenonalÔ_Ô€fashion.€€There€is€potentially€no€limit€to€the€political,€social,€and€economicÐ $À Ðdomains€which€Jews€and€gentiles€will€cohabit,€even€as€informal€exclusive€enclaves€for€eachÐ ü˜ Ðmay€persistð!ðfrom€commercial€enterprises€to€neighborhoods€to€country€clubs.€€Thus,€the€languageÐ Ôp Ðof€tolerance,€which€always€signals€the€undesirable€proximity€of€the€Other€in€oneððs€midst,€wouldÐ ¬H Ðappear€to€be€indexical€of€this€very€capacity€for€mixing.€€€If€the€language€of€tolerance€is€invokedÐ „  Ðfor€women€only€when€they€are€knocking€at€the€doors€of€extreme€male€Ô_ÔhomosocialÔ_Ô€venues,Ð \ø Ðusually€places€where€bodies€are€overtly€at€issueð!ðsports,€war,€etc.ð!ðto€the€extent€that€women€mostlyÐ 4 Ð Ðstay€in€their€sexually€assigned€places€and€to€the€extent€that€the€feminine€body€is€heterosexuallyÐ  "¨ Ðappropriated€and€privatized,€the€need€for€tolerance€is€not€triggered.€€Womenððs€formal€politicalÐ ä#€  Ðequality€is€neither€the€sign€nor€the€vehicle€of€their€integration;€to€the€contrary,€that€equality€isÐ ¼%X" Ðfounded€in€a€presumption€of€difference,€organized€by€a€heterosexual€division€of€labor,€andÐ ”'0!$ Ðunderpinned€by€a€heterosexual€familial€structure,€all€of€which€attenuate€the€need€for€tolerance,Ð l)#& Ðand€also,€of€course,€underscore€the€difference€between€formal€and€substantive€equality.Ð D+à$( Ðà  àWhat€this€means€is€something€we€already€know€from€several€decades€of€feministÐ -¸&* Ðtheorizing€about€the€terms€of€gender€equality€within€a€liberal€frame:€€precisely€because€itÐ d Ðabstracts€from€womenððs€condition€and€activities€in€the€private€realmð!ð€the€condition€and€activitiesÐ <Ø Ðthat€implicate€womenððs€sexuality€and€designation€through€maternityð!ðwomenððs€equality€withinÐ  ° Ðliberalism€always€remains€incomplete.€€A€subjection€is€presupposed€and€institutionalized,€aÐ ì ˆ Ðsubjection€that€turns€upon€womenððs€Ô_ÔhypostasizedÔ_Ô€heterosexual€difference€privatized€andÐ Ä ` ÐÔ_ÔunemancipatedÔ_Ô,€a€subjection€that€licenses€everything€from€domestic€violence€to€the€Ô_ÔfeminizationÔ_ÔÐ œ8  Ðof€poverty€to€an€Ô_ÔinegalitarianÔ_Ô€sexual€division€of€labor€in€both€the€family€and€the€wage€economy.€Ð t  ÐIt€is€precisely€because€and€insofar€as€women€are€subordinated€by€a€sexual„social€division€of€laborÐ Lè  Ðdevolving€upon€their€bodies€that€they€can€be€rendered€equals€in€the€public:€it€is€the€capacity€toÐ $À Ðsplit€their€existence€in€this€fashion€that€makes€them€candidates€for€equality€rather€than€tolerance,Ð ü˜ Ðor€more€precisely,€that€means€their€achievement€of€equality€does€not€require€the€supplement€ofÐ Ôp Ðtolerance.Ð ¬H Ðà  àThe€rhetoric€of€tolerance€would€seem€to€function,€then,€as€a€kind€of€diagnostic€key€forÐ „  Ðexamining€relations€of€subordination€in€liberalism.€€It€is€invoked€to€redress€histories€ofÐ \ø Ðsubordination€or€exclusion€where€a€more€thoroughgoing€equality€is€immediately€at€stake,€whereÐ 4 Ð Ðsubordination€of€an€Ô_ÔabjectedÔ_Ô€or€subjected€Other€is€neither€possible€through€a€mechanism€such€asÐ  "¨ Ðprivatization€of€this€subordination,€nor€through€sustained€Ô_ÔinstitutionalizationÔ_Ô€of€thisÐ ä#€  Ðsubordination€in€the€economy.€€Tolerance€is€invoked€in€liberal€orders€when€a€hegemonic€normÐ ¼%X" Ðcannot€colonize€or€incorporate€its€other€with€ease,€when€that€norm€maintains€or€regroups€itsÐ ”'0!$ Ðstrength€through€Ô_ÔmarginalizationÔ_Ô€and€regulation€rather€than€through€incorporation€and€directÐ l)#& Ðrelations€of€subordination.€€€Hence€today,€popular€political€discourse€treats€heterosexual€womenÐ D+à$( Ðas€candidates€for€equality,€while€lesbian€women€are€candidates€for€tolerance;€the€subordinatingÐ -¸&* Ðdifference€of€the€former€is€secured€by€a€heterosexual€social€and€familial€order€while€the€latterÐ d Ðcannot€be.€€In€this€regard,€the€invocation€of€tolerance€functions€as€a€critical€index€of€the€limitedÐ <Ø Ðreach€of€liberal€equality€claimsð!ðit€is€a€containment€practice€for€more€radical€claims€of€equality€orÐ  ° Ðfreedom.€€Practices€of€tolerance€are€tacit€acknowledgments€that€emancipation€and€substantiveÐ ì ˆ Ðequality€are€not€at€hand,€that€the€Other€remains€other€and€subordinate,€that€it€has€not€beenÐ Ä ` Ðcoopted€through€incorporation€in€the€terms€made€available€by€a€liberal€discourse€of€justice€orÐ œ8  Ðthrough€a€division€of€€labor€suffused€with€the€terms€of€its€subordination.Ð t  Ðà  àThis€is€not€to€argue€that€there€is€something€in€the€nature€of€those€identities€treated€asÐ Lè  Ðmaterial€for€contemporary€practices€of€toleranceð!ðrace,€sexuality,€ethnicity,€Judaism,€Islamð!ðthatÐ $À Ðinherently€makes€them€so€eligible.€€It€is€not€to€argueòò€pace€óóNancy€Fraser,€that€these€constructionsÐ ü˜ Ðof€identity€are€primarily€normative€orders€of€subordination,€vying€for€recognition,€while€genderÐ Ôp Ðand€class€are€materially€organized€powers,€eligible€for€Ô_ÔredistributiveÔ_Ô€claims.€€To€the€contrary,€theÐ ¬H Ðassignation€of€one€order€of€power€to€norms€and€the€other€to€materiality€is€itself€symptomatic€ofÐ „  Ðthe€discursive€mystification€of€the€forms€of€inequality€exercised€by€tolerance€discourse.€Ð \ø ÐTolerance€appears€as€a€discourse€of€pure€Ô_ÔnormativityÔ_Ô,€of€pure€recognition€and€its€limits;€what€thisÐ 4 Ð Ðappearance€hides€is€the€inequalitiesð!ðand€not€simply€the€normative€Ô_ÔmarginalizationÔ_Ôð!ðorganizing€itsÐ  "¨ Ðsubjects.€€Norms€of€gender€subordination€can€be€entrenched€through€the€privatization€of€oneÐ ä#€  Ðcrucial€aspect€of€themð!ðthe€laboring,€sexualized,€reproductive€often„but„not„always€heterosexualÐ ¼%X" Ðfeminine€body.€€The€fashion€in€which€the€Ô_ÔgenderedÔ_Ô€body€can€be€split€and€domesticated€isÐ ”'0!$ Ðmirrored€for€a€homosexual,€Jewish,€or€other€Ô_ÔracializedÔ_Ô€body€only€through€the€practice€of€passing.€Ð l)#& ÐWhat?€€In€liberal€democratic€orders€of€justice,€are€women€in€the€public€sphere€passing?Ð D+à$( Ðà  àIf€a€discourse€of€tolerance€is€triggered€when€some€difference,€imagined€to€be€fixed€andÐ -¸&* Ðsignificant,€spills€into€the€public,€then€sexual€difference€it€would€seem,€could€be€almostÐ d Ðcompletely€privatized.€€If€it€is€triggered€when€a€historical€form€of€social€subordination€is€to€beÐ <Ø Ðsustained€while€its€effects€are€somewhat€attenuated,€male€supremacy,€it€would€seem,€could€beÐ  ° Ðsustained€through€both€a€public€and€private€sexual€division€of€labor.€€If€tolerance€discourse€isÐ ì ˆ Ðtriggered€when€a€Ô_ÔsubcommunityÔ_Ô€threatens€the€unity€and€homogeneity€as€well€as€the€formal€andÐ Ä ` Ðinformal€norms€of€the€dominant€national€community,€sex€difference€construed€heterosexually€didÐ œ8  Ðnot€figure€such€Ô_ÔsubcommunityÔ_Ô.€€(Jews€as€a€nation,€and€Jews€as€a€race,€did.)€€But€if€toleranceÐ t  Ðrequires€privatization€of€a€difference€that€matters,€a€privatization€that€always€threatens€to€leakÐ Lè  Ðinto€the€public,€why€isnððt€this€womenððs€situation?€€€Privatization€of€a€difference€is€not€the€sameÐ $À Ðthing€as€subordination€through€difference€in€the€private€sphere.€€Both€Jews€and€women,€formallyÐ ü˜ Ðemancipated€in€nineteenth€and€twentieth€century€Europe,€gain€political€equality.€€For€Jews€this€isÐ Ôp Ðaccompanied€by€the€Ô_ÔgovernmentalityÔ_Ô€of€tolerance€because€once€the€legal€strictures€are€removed,Ð ¬H Ðthe€construction€of€the€Jewish€difference€is€not€a€systematically€subordinating€difference,€even€ifÐ „  Ðit€is€a€maligning€or€Ô_ÔmarginalizingÔ_Ô€one.€€In€this€regard,€tolerance€iterates€the€significance€ofÐ \ø Ðdifferences€whose€significance€may€be€fading.€€Women,€however,€do€not€need€to€be€toleratedÐ 4 Ð Ðbecause€the€discourse€of€their€difference€remains€the€site€and€vehicle€of€their€institutionalizedÐ  "¨ Ðsubordination.Ð ä#€  Ð