The ‘Jew’ as the ‘Floating Signifier’

I am not the first person to point out that a mechanism of antisemitism/antizionism is scapegoating. Soviet writer and journalist Vasily Grossman said, “tell me what you accuse the Jews of and I will tell you what you are guilty of” (1). But how exactly is this behavior repeated century after century for 2,000 years? The simple answer is that the projections morph and mutate every century to the ills of any given society in their respective time and place. I ask again, how? 

Perhaps a philosophical/linguistic approach can provide some deeper insight. Julia Kristeva has heavily influenced my work, and she is a bit dense and complicated (2). Overall, Kristeva’s theories regarding her analysis of art and literature can best be understood when a few different concepts are paired and layered, working in tandem with each other. 

Ferdinand De Saussure was the linguist and philosopher who founded the study of semiotics. Saussure is most well-known for a compilation of notes titled, Course in General Linguistics (3). In these notes, Saussure describes a system of study that focuses on the structure of meaning in language. What Saussure terms as signs are a grouping of sounds, which we learn to distinguish as words, that are arbitrarily assigned to an image and concept. The relationship to sound and concept is arbitrary because there is no inherent connection between a sound and a word, what is called the signifier, to that of the concept or object that it is linked to, the signified, other than the meaning we have assigned to it. Saussure’s theories may seem like an overcomplication when identifying tangible concepts such as Dr. Seuss’ One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish. Yet this same system instantly becomes more complicated when discussing the similarities and the subtle differences between concepts like mercy and compassion. It is within this arbitrary space of subtle differences and similarities that a series of associated, yet oppositional words can be linked together, creating a signifying chain. This chain can also be thought of as a web since any “particular word is like the center of a constellation,” and semioticians study the mapping of these constellations as their own signifying system (4).

Kristeva does not track and study traditional signs and map the webs of signifying chains. Instead, she analyzes what is in-between the links of meaning making, “the empty space in which they move” where meaning breaks down, and how it can radically shift into something else (5). She also calls the boundary and rupture of meaning making “the thetic” (6). Kristeva does not explicitly say this, but from what I can deduce, the ‘Jew’ inhabits this nebulous space of meaning making and is often the violent stand-in for any thetic breaks. In other words, the ‘Jew’ is the “floating signifier,” (7). This role is thrust upon them century after century. Elaborating upon René Girard’s Violence and the Sacred, Kristeva says, “by focusing violence on a victim, displaces it [semiotic, symbolic] onto the symbolic order at the very moment this order is being founded. Sacrifice sets up the symbol and the symbolic order at the same time” (8).

Put another way, the ‘Jew’ becomes both the symbolic and semiotic stand-in for the sins of the century. To atone for these sins, an incoherent violent sacrifice must be made. The ‘Jew’ becomes the sacrificial goat (9). Is there any other way to explain the violent outbursts that often accompany popular slogans? “Free Palestine!” “From the river to the sea!” “Genocide!” “Appartheid!” “Colonizer!” For these are the sins of the 20th and 21st centuries. They will not be atoned for if radical Islamist ideology gets what they want, the annihilation of the state of Israel. 

A dismantling of the legacy of racism and colonialism is not as direct as people want it to be. There is no simple or topical application to untangle this convoluted mess. It requires a deep shift in identity and how we relate to the world. Such a shift forces an interrogation on the current status quo and asks us, ‘what’s next?’ Sadly, more often than not, people are not willing to confront these questions. For any shifting of identity requires a divorce from the ideals we hold close to our heart. Who am I if I am not defining myself by what I am not? Yet these questions must be faced head on if there are any hopes of achieving peace without violence directed at the substitute for the sacrificial goat. 

Endnotes

1. Quote by Vasily Grossman: “Antisemitism is always a means rather than an e…” 
2. Most explanations of Kristeva and Saussure are all excerpted from my soon to be published work And of Dread Persephone [Title Pending] with McFarland Publishers. 
3. Saussure, Ferdinand De Saussure. “Course in General Linguistics.” The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism, 2nd ed, 2010. 
4. ibid (866). 
5. Kristeva, Julia. Desire in Language, a Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art. Columbia UP, 1980. (47).
6. Kristeva, Julia. Revolution in Poetic Language. 1984. Columbia UP, 2024. (42).
7. ibid (80). 
8. ibid (74).
9. https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/leviticus-161-34-the-scapegoat-ritual/