Abstract
This article looks at nationalism and religion, analyzing the sociological mechanisms by which their intersection is simultaneously produced and obscured. I propose that the construction of modern nationalism follows two contradictory principles that operate simultaneously: hybridization and purification. Hybridization refers to the mixing of “religious” and “secular” practices; purification refers to the separation between “religion” and “nationalism” as two distinct ontological zones. I test these arguments empirically using the case of Zionist nationalism. As a movement that was born in Europe but traveled to the Middle East, Zionism exhibits traits of both of these seemingly contradictory principles, of hybridization and purification, and pushes them to their limits. The article concludes by pointing to an epistemological asymmetry in the literature by which the fusion of nationalism and religion tends to be underplayed in studies of the West and overplayed in studies of the East/global South.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
There are, of course, alternative ways in which the literature on nationalism can be classified. Gorski (2005), for example, describes four waves of social science discourse on nationalism. In some ways, his project corresponds with mine, as he adopts a Bourdieuian framework to understand the notion of modernity in nationalism.
The debate between the two camps pertains to two different dimensions. The first debate concerns an ontological question, namely the nature of nations (and is characterized by the debate between primordialists vs. social constructivists); the second is a debate about the timing of nationalism’s emergence (and can be characterized as the debate between perennialists vs. modernists). For the sake of simplicity I keep the distinction between primordialists and modernists as representing these two—albeit different—dimensions.
Beck and Sznaider (2006) further argue that social scientists take it for granted that society should be equated with the “national, modern, society,” a phenomenon that they label “methodological nationalism.”
Admittedly, several researchers have addressed the rise of modern nationalism. Anderson (1991) surely discusses the social construction of nationalism, which he termed “imagined community,” but his analysis of modernity is ultimately founded on homogenous time and on a developmental model of history. Brubaker (1994) provides alternative explanations for the rise of French nationalism and the modern concept of citizenship, but his analysis does not address the modern as a constructed and illusionary category. Gorski (2000b, 2005) suggests abandoning the “modernist thesis,” which argues that nationalism is “inherently modern.” He shows that in some cases the modern criteria of nationalism can be applied to pre-modern forms of nationalism, but in so doing he accepts and endorses the distinction between the “modern” and “pre-modern.” My point is that while there is literature on “tradition” as a constructed category (“the invention of tradition”) it does not address “modern” (“the invention of the modern”) head on—as Latour does.
Zerubavel (1996) uses “lumping” and “splitting” as two basic mental operations underlining “cognitive sociology.” Albeit somewhat parallel to Latour, the latter does not use his principal categories at the cognitive level only; rather these are pre-epistemological categories that determine the construction of the modern as a category of practice and discourse.
These arguments echo Durkheim’s prediction about the decline of traditional religion and the rise of alternative forms of belief. Since society cannot function without religion, new religions would eventually replace the old ones: “The old gods are growing old or dying and the new gods have not been born” (cited in Gorski, 2000a, p. 141).
Durkheim’s (1915, 1965) Elementary Forms of the Religious Life is a case in point. He argued that “all known religious beliefs, whether simple or complex, present one common characteristic. They presuppose a classification of all things...into two classes or opposed groups, generally designed by two distinct terms which are translated well enough by the words profane and sacred” (Durkheim’s 1915/1965, p. 37).
As Baily ironically put it: “Secular is really quite easy to define! Its meaning keeps changing yet remains consistent. It always means, simply, the opposite of ‘religious’—whatever that means” (quoted in Swatos & Christiano, 1999, p. 213).
Latour (1987, pp. 103–144) also uses the term “translation,” which refers to the proliferation of hybrids, since “hybridization” may imply previously existing unadulterated elements. I chose the term “hybridization” for consistency purposes, with the qualification that hybridization is an ongoing process that denies the possibility of previously existing, pure categories.
Boundary setting and classifications have always been at the forefront of sociological analyses of modernity from Durkheim and Mauss to Bourdieu and others. They ask questions about epistemology, group closure, symbolism, and representation (see also Lamont & Molnar, 2002). Whereas most sociologists (particularly within the modernization tradition) have accepted modernity as given, others have alerted us to the constructed nature of its own boundaries (e.g., Douglas, 1966, 1975; Gieryn, 1983; Mitchell, 1991; Proctor, 1991). The position of these latter scholars varies with respect to the location, stability, agency, and visibility of the boundaries.
Indeed, the leading rabbis in Europe launched a frontal attack against Zionism; among them was the Admor of Lubavitch (Shalom Dov Baer), who emphasized the danger latent in the Zionist movement.
A recent example is the negotiation of the Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, notoriously secularist, with the Palestinian delegation at the Camp David summit meeting in the year 2000. To the disbelief of several of his colleagues in the Israeli delegation, Barak suddenly begun to argue that “the holy of the holies” should remain in Israel’s possession. Barak wanted to be remembered in Jewish history as the man who gave Israel sovereignty, if only partial, over Temple Mount (known also as, Haram al-Sharif). After Camp David he also started to claim that when the Palestinians deny the Jewish connection to Temple Mount, it is if they are denying the Jewish connection to all of the Land of Israel, including Haifa and Tel-Aviv.
The emissaries’ missions might last for months, possibly even a year or two, and they received a third of the entire net revenues for themselves. The emissary was provided with a sheaf of documents, including a letter written on parchment in orotund language and signed by as many Torah sages as possible, which described the city and the reasons for the mission, and served as the emissary’s introduction to the members of the target community. In addition to the letters, the emissary was also furnished with a power of attorney, which gave his demands legal validity. By means of this document, the emissary was entitled to act as the legal envoy of the community that sent him, collect in its name charitable funds, bequests, or debts, and appear in court. The emissary had a special ledger, in which the heads of communities and individuals recorded the sums they gave him. The ledger served as testimony when he returned home, a kind of receipt-book.
Yavne’eli published his conclusions from his eighteen-month journey, along with the letters he sent to Dr. Arthur Ruppin and to Dr. Yaakov Tahoun, twenty-one years later in a book, Journey to Yemen.
Yavne’eli in a letter to Dr. Y. Toun, Jan. 2, 1911.
Yavne’eli, from a report to Dr. A. Ruppin, p. 150.
Yavne’eli, letter to Dr. A. Ruppin and Dr. Y. Toun, Sadah, 28 Adar 5671 (March 28, 1911).
Yavne’eli, letter to Dr. A. Ruppin and to Dr. Y. Toun, San’a, 5 Iyar 5671 (May 3, 1911).
Yavne’eli, report to Dr. A. Ruppin, 1932, p. 151.
Yavne’eli, letter to Dr. A. Ruppin and Dr. Y. Toun, Aden, 7 Av 5671 [Aug. 1, 1911], p. 111.
Yavne’eli, letter to Dr. Y. Toun, January 2, 1911.
Yavne’eli to Dr. Y. Toun, Dali, 25 Teveth 5671 (Jan. 25, 1911).
This is why it would be difficult to explain Yavne’eli’s behavior in terms of ideology and manipulation. Even if he used religion instrumentally, he remained entangled in the hybrid identity in which nationalism and religion are intertwined. Religion is not an instrument because it does not go away.
Ussishkin was one of the leaders of the “Hovevei Zion” (the so called “Lovers of Zion” movement in the late nineteenth century), served as director of the Jewish National Fund (JNF) from 1923 to 1941, and overall was a representative of what is known as “pragmatic secular Zionism.”
The lecture, delivered at a conference of Keren Hayesod in Jerusalem, was published in the daily Ha’aretz (Ha’aretz, 23 Shvat 5689 [Feb. 23, 1929]).
Ha’aretz, 23 Shvat 5689 (Feb. 23, 1929).
Ha’aretz, 23 Shvat 5689 (Feb. 23, 1929).
The circumstances by which the Jewish leadership in Palestine discovered the Jews of Iraq are complex. They involved a series of events and developments: the need to transfer by land Jewish refugees who had reached the Soviet–Iranian border during the war; a plan to bring a million Jews to Palestine because of anxiety about the demographic situation in Palestine; and a pogrom perpetrated against the Jews of Baghdad in June 1941 (see Shenhav 2006).
Conference of members of the Aliyah Committees, tapes 641–2, in Meir, 1993, p. 272.
Remarks by Sereni to the Committee for Aliyah Bet Affairs, July 2, 1942, LMA, Israel Galili Archive, File 8, p. 9; quoted in Meir, 1996, 62.
“Passages about Jewry in Iraq,” Feb. 4, 1943, KMA, Section 2 Overseas, Folder 17, File 87. Quoted by Meir, 1996, 61.
Letter from emissary in Tehran, July 6, 1943, ibid.
Kibbutz Hameuhad Archives (KHA) 25 Ayin/Container 1/File 12, Summer 1942.
KMA 25 Ayin/Container 1/File 12, Summer 1942.
KMA Yad Tabenkin, Section 25 Ayin /Container 1/File 12, Aug. 30, 1942.
KMA Yad Tabenkin, Section 25 Ayin /Container 1/File 12, Aug. 30, 1942.
Lavon Institute, section 320 IV/file 6, December 1944.
As noted, even though Zionism formulates its political logic on the basis of a constant dialogue with Jewish theology, it should not be identified unequivocally with Orthodox Judaism; in a certain sense it can be called “heterodox Judaism.” In other words, what we need to do here is formulate a conceptual system having as its two poles not “religiousness” vs. “secularity” but “Orthodox Judaism” vs “heterodox Judaism” (Fischer, 1988).
Israel Institute for Democracy, protocol of secularity forum, January 2, 1997.
I use the word “overwhelmingly” because Zionism today incorporates into its ranks new groups of non-Jews such as a big portion of the Russian immigrants. Many of them (approximately 30% of those who immigrated to Israel since the early 1990s, and 50% on average every year since 2000) had never been Jewish, but may have married Jewish spouses, or were using Jewish identity as a means to immigrate from the former Soviet Union at a time when hardly anyone except Jews were being permitted exit.
References
Althusser, L. (1969/1971). Ideology and ideological state apparatuses. In Lenin and philosophy and other essays (pp. 162–183). New York: Monthly Review.
Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. London: Verso.
Asad, T. (1993). Genealogies of religion: Discipline and reasons of power in Christianity and Islam. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Asad, T. (2003). Formations of the secular: Christianity, Islam, modernity. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Avineri, S. (1981). The making of modern Zionism: The intellectual origins of the Jewish state. New York: Basic Books.
Beck, U., & Sznaider, N. (2006). Unpacking cosmopolitanism for the Social Sciences: A research agenda. British Journal of Sociology, 57(1), 1–23.
Bell, I. B. (1952). Crowd culture. New York: Harper.
Bellah, N. R., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. (1985). Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bendix, R. (1967). Tradition and modernity reconsidered. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 9, 292–346.
Bendix, R. (1978). Kings or people: Power and the mandate to rule. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Berger, P. (1967). The sacred canopy. New York: Doubleday.
Bhabha, K. H. (1990). The other question: Difference, discrimination and the discourse of colonialism. In R. Ferguson, M. Gever, T. Minhha, & C. West (Eds.), Out there: Marginalization and contemporary cultures (pp. 71–87). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bhabha, K. H. (1994). The location of culture. London: Routledge.
Bockman, J., & Eyal, G. (2002). Eastern Europe as laboratory for economic knowledge: The transnational roots of neoliberalism. American Journal of Sociology, 108, 310–352.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinctions: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Brawer, A. (1944). Road dust. Tel-Aviv: Am Oved (Hebrew).
Brubaker, R. (1994). Rethinking nationalism: Nation as institutionalized form, practical category, contingent event. Contention, 4(1), 1–14.
Brubaker, R. (1996). Nationalism reframed: Nationhood and the national question in the new Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brubaker, R. (1998). Myths and misconceptions in the study of nationalism. In J. A. Hall (Ed.), The state of the nation: Ernest Gellner and the theory of nationalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brubaker, R. (1999). The Manichean myth: Rethinking the distinction between ‘civic’ and ‘ethnic’ nationalism. In H. Kriesi, et al. (Eds.), Nation and national identity. Zurick: Rugger.
Brubaker, R. (2002). Ethnicity without groups. Archives européennes de sociologie, XLIII(2), 163–189.
Buckser, A. (1998). Course syllabi in the anthropology of religion. Anthropology of Religion Section, American Anthropological Association.
Buruma, I., & Margalit, A. (2004). Seeds of revolution. New York Review of Books, LI(4), 10–13.
Butler, J. (1991). Contingent foundations: Feminism and the question of postmodernism. International Praxis, 11(2), 150–165.
Calhoun, C. (1991). The problem of identity in collective action. In J. Huber (Ed.), Macro–micro linkages in sociology. California: Sage.
Calhoun, C. (1993). Nationalism and ethnicity. Annual Review of Sociology, 19, 139–211.
Casanova, J. (1994). Public religions in the modern world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Chatterjee, P. (1993). The nations and its fragments: Colonial and postcolonial histories. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Chaves, M. (1994). Secularization as declining religious authority. Social Forces, 72, 749–774.
Dabashi, H. (1993). Theology of discontent: The ideological foundations of the Islamic revolution in Iran. New York: New York University Press.
Dittgen, H. (1997). The American debate about immigration in the 1990s: A new nationalism after the end of the cold war? Stanford Humanities Review, 5(2), 256–286.
Douglas, M. (1966). Purity and danger: An analysis of concepts of pollution and taboo. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Douglas, M. (1975). Implicit meanings: Essays in anthropology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Duara, P. (1995). Rescuing history from the nation: Questioning narratives of modern China. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Durkheim, E. (1915/1965). Elementary forms of the religious life. New York: Free Press.
Emirbayer, M. (1997). Manifesto for relational sociology. American Journal of Sociology,103(2), 281–317.
Emirbayer, M., & Goodwin, J. (1994). Network analysis, culture, and the problem of agency. American Journal of Sociology, 99(6), 1411–1454.
Finke, R., & Innaccone, L. B. (1996). Mobilizing local religious markets: Religious pluralism in the Empire State 1855–1865. American Sociological Review, 61, 203–218.
Fischer, S. (1988). Jewish salvational visions. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 24(1-2), 18–40.
Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality (pp. 87–104). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Friedland, R. (2001). Religious nationalism and the problem of collective representation. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 125–152.
Friedland, R. (2002). Money, sex and God: The erotic logic of religious nationalism. Sociological Theory, 20, 381–426.
Gauchet, M. (1997). The disenchantment of the world: A political history of religion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Geertz, C. (1983). Local knowledge: Further essays in interpretive anthropology. New York: Basic Books.
Gellner, E. (Ed.) (1981). Flux and reflux in the faith of men in Muslim society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gellner, E. (1983). Nations and nationalism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Gellner, E. (1994). Encounters with nationalism. Oxford: Blackwell.
Gelvin, J. (1999). Modernity and its discontents: On the durability of nationalism in the Arab Middle East. Nations and Nationalism, 5, 71–89.
Gieryn, T. (1983). Boundary work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48, 781–795.
Gorski, S. P. (2000a). Historicizing the secularization debate: Church, state, and society in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe, ca. 1300 to 1700. American Sociological Review, 65, 138–167.
Gorski, S. P. (2000b). The mosaic moment: An early modernist critique of modernist theories of nationalism. American Journal of Sociology, 105(5), 1428–1468.
Gorski, S. P. (2005). Nation-ization struggles: A Bourieuian theory of nationalism. Department of Sociology, Yale University.
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selection from the prison notebooks. New York: International Publisher.
Greenfeld, L. (1992). Nationalism: Five roads to modernity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Greenfeld, L. (1996). The modern religion? Critical Review, 10, 169–191.
Guttman, R. (2002). Israel–Jews: A portrait, beliefs, observance of tradition and values of Jews in Israel 2000. Jerusalem: Guttman Center, The Israel Institute of Democracy.
Hadden, J. K. (1987). Toward desacralizing secularization theory. Social Force, 65, 587–611.
Hastings, A. (1997). The construction of nationhood: Ethnicity, religion and nationalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hays, J. H. C. (1928). Essays on nationalism. New York: Macmillan.
Hefner, W. R. (1998). Multiple modernities: Christianity, Islam And Hinduism in a globalizing age. Annual Review of Anthropology, 27, 83–104.
Herzog, H. (1984). Sociological interpretation for the concepts ‘old Yishuv’ and ‘new Yishuv’. Cathedra, 32, 99–108 (Hebrew).
Hobsbawm, E. (1983). Introduction: Inventing traditions. In E. Hobsbawm & T. Ranger (Eds.), The invention of tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hobsbawm, E. (1990). Nations and nationalism since 1780. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Huxley, J. (1941). Religion without revelation. London: Watts.
Joppke, C., & Rosenhek, Z. (2002). Contesting ethnic immigration: Germany and Israel compared. European Journal of Sociology, XLIII, 301–335.
Juergenmeyer, M. (1993). The new cold war? Religious nationalism confronts the secular state. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Kedourie, E. (Ed.). (1971). Nationalism in Asia and Africa. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Kemp, A. (1997). Borders talks. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Sociology, Tel-Aviv University.
Kena’ani, D. (1976). The second Aliya and its relationship to religion and tradition. Tel-Aviv: Sifriyat Poalim (Hebrew).
Khazzoom, A. (2003). The great chain of orientalism: Jewish identity, stigma management, and ethnic exclusion in Israel. American Sociological Review, 68, 481–511.
Kimmerling, B. (1998). Between hegemony and dormant Kulturkampf in Israel. Israeli Affairs, 4, 49–72.
Kimmerling, B. (1999). Religion, nationalism and democracy in Israel. Constellations, 6, 339–363.
Lamont, M., & Molnar, V. (2002). The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 167–195.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Llobera, R. J. (1994). The God of modernity. New York: Berg.
Luckman, T. (1967). The invisible religion. New York: Macmillan.
Luz, E. (1988). Parallels meet: Religion and nationalism in the early Zionist movement. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society.
Marx, W. A. (2003). Faith in nation. New York: Oxford University Press.
McAlister, M. (2001). Epic encounter: Culture, media, and U.S. interests in the Middle East, 1945–2000. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Meir, E. (1993). The Zionist movement and the Jews of Iraq 1941–1950. Tel Aviv: Am Oved (Hebrew).
Meir, E. (1996). Conflicting worlds: The encounter between Zionist emissaries and the Jews of Iraq during the 1940s and early 1950s. In D. Ofer (Ed.), Israel in the Great Wave of Immigration, 1948–1953. Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi (Hebrew).
Milbank, J. (1990). Theology and social theory: Beyond secular reason. Oxford: Blackwell.
Mitchell, T. (1991). The limits of the state: Beyond statist approaches and their critics. American Political Science Review, 85, 77–96.
Morone, A. J. (2003). Hellfire nation. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Pew Research Center (2002). American Struggle with Religion’s Role at Home and Abroad. Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. Retrieved from http://pewforum.org/publications/surveys/religion.
Piterberg, G. (1996). Domestic orientalism: The representation of ‘oriental’ Jews in Zionist/Israeli historiography. British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 23, 125–145.
Proctor, N. R. (1991). Value free science: Purity and power in modern knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Ram, H. (2000a). The immemorial Iranian nation? School textbooks and historical memory in post-revolutionary Iran. Nations and Nationalism, 6, 67–90.
Ram, H. (2000b). Post-1979 Iranian national culture: A reconsideration. Tel Aviver Jahrbuch fur deutsche Geschichte, 30, 223–253.
Ram, H. (2006). Reading Iran in Israel: The self and the other, religion and modernity. Tel-Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad Publishing House (Hebrew).
Raz, A. (1999). National colonial theology. Tikkun, 14, 11–16.
Raz-Krakotzkin, A. (1998). Orientalism, Jewish studies, and Israeli society. Jama’a, 3, 34–61 (Hebrew).
Raz-Krakotzkin, A. (2002). A national colonial theology—religion, orientalism and the construction of the secular in the Zionist discourse. Tel Aviver Jahrbuch fur deutsche Geschichte, XXX, 312–326.
Said, E. (1978). Orientalism. New York: Pantheon.
Schmitt, C. (1934). Political theology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Shafir, G. (1989/1996). Land, labor and the origins of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict 1882–1914. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Shapira, A. (1989). Od Davar. Tel Aviv: Am Oved.
Shenhav, Y. (2003a). The cloak, the cage and the fog of sanctity: The Zionist mission and the role of religion among Jews in the Middle East. Nations and Nationalism, 9(4), 497–515.
Shenhav, Y. (2006). The Arab–Jews: A postcolonial reading of nationalism, religion and ethnicity. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Shohat, E. (1988). Sephardim in Israel: Zionism from the point of view of its Jewish victims. Social Text, 7, 1–36.
Sifton, E. (2004). The battle over the pledge. The Nation, 278(13), 11–15.
Smith, D. A. (1986). The ethnic origins of nations. London: Oxford.
Smith, D. A. (1995). Zionism and diaspora nationalism. Israel Affairs, 2(2), 1–19.
Smith, D. A. (2003). Chosen peoples: Sacred sources of national identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stark, R. (1996). The rise of Christianity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Stark, R., & Iannaccone, L. (1994). A supply side reinterpretation of the ‘secularization’ of Europe. Journal of the Scientific Study of Religion, 33, 230–252.
Sullivan, A. (2003). Do the democrats have a prayer. Washington Monthly (June 1–8).
Swatos, H. W., & Christiano, K. J. (1999). Secularization theory: The course of a concept. Sociology of Religion, 60, 209–228.
Taylor, C. (1998). Modes of secularism. In R. Bhrgava (Ed.), Secularism and its critics. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Tibi, B. (1990). Islam and the cultural accommodation of social change. Boulder Colorado: Westview.
Weber, M. (1904/1930). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. New York: Scribner.
Weber, M. (1919/1946). Science as a vocation. In H. H. Gerth & C. W. Mills (Eds. and translators), From Max Weber: Essays in sociology. New York: Oxford University Press.
White, H. (1992). Identity and control. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Wilson, B. (1985). Secularization: The inherited model. In: P. E. Hammond (Ed.), The sacred in a secular age (pp. 9–20). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Yaari, A. (1951). Shluhei Eretz–Israel. Jerusalem: Rabbi Kook Institution (Hebrew).
Yavne’eli, S. (1932). Journey to Yemen. Tel Aviv: Mapai (Hebrew).
Zerubavel, E. (1996). Lumping and splitting: Notes on social classification. Sociological Forum, 11, 421–433.
Acknowledgement
I thank the editors of Theory and Society and the reviewers for their excellent comments. I also thank Daniel Breslau, Gil Eyal, Joshua Guetzkow, Hanna Herzog, Eva Illouz, Alexandra Kalev, Azziza Khazzoom, Shoham Melamed, Nissim Mizrachi, Haggay Ram, Gershon Shafir, and Jennifer Vorbach for comments and suggestions on earlier drafts.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Shenhav, Y. Modernity and the hybridization of nationalism and religion: Zionism and the Jews of the Middle East as a heuristic case. Theor Soc 36, 1–30 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-006-9015-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-006-9015-8