A Different Kind of Whiteness: Marking and Unmarking of Social Boundaries in the Construction of Hegemonic Ethnicity

Abstract

This article proposes a new theoretical approach to the analysis of hegemonic ethnicity through an examination of the construction of white ethnicity among Ashkenazim (Jews of European origin) in Israel. Contrary to the theory of symbolic ethnicity, I argue that "Ashkenaziness" in Israel is not an optional, voluntary identity; rather, it is constituted by employing narratives that continually establish cultural, color-based, and ethnic boundaries between Ashkenazim and Mizrahi Jews. In certain social and ideological circumstances, however, boundary marking is not enough to maintain a privileged status. From the narratives of Ashkenazi Jews-the Israeli version of whites-it emerges that not only do they demarcate social boundaries between themselves and other groups, thereby preserving the ethnic hierarchy, but they are constantly engaged in blurring or erasing these same boundaries, allowing Ashkenazim to remain a transparent, unmarked social category. This dual practice of marking and unmarking is a result of the tension between the Jewish-Zionist and Western-secular images of the state. While Israel's Jewish discourse supposedly negates intra-Jewish ethnic conflicts, the Western ideal identifies Ashkenazim with the state, thus solidifying their power and preserving their privileged status.

“Passing” as (Non)Ethnic: The Israeli Version of Acting White

“…In addition, 12 Mizrahi men and women were interviewed. Six of the interviews had taken place earlier as part of other studies on the subject of ethnic identities in Israel conducted by Kachten (), Sasson‐Levy (), and Shoshana (). Of these studies, we selected only those interviews in which the concept of hishtaknezut was mentioned on the initiative of the interviewees themselves.…”

“…The marked group—Mizrahim—is the one perceived as ethnic, and its culture is seen as unsuited to the demands of modernity. By contrast, the unmarked group (Ashkenazim) is considered “white,” with the attendant European and Western cultural capital (Sasson‐Levy ; Shohat ). These social categories do not refer to fixed identities; rather, they are a historical social construction that is specific and local.…”

Why critical military studies needs to smash imperial white supremacist capitalist heteropatriarchy: a rejoinder

“…While work on Israeli military identities raises a number of questions about intersectionality's limits, it is evident that the burden of analysing gender (and its intersection with other axes of difference) remains with feminist critical military scholars. This burden has already been complicated by including categories such as sexuality, femininity, and whiteness (Hartal & Sasson-Levy 2017;Lomsky-Federer & Sasson-Levy 2015Sasson-Levy 2013). However, I argue that militarised masculinities cannot afford to neglect feminist theories and concepts and must engage in the project of smashing what bell hooks refers to as white supremacist capitalist heteropatriarchy (hooks 2009).…”

The progressive Orient: Gay tourism to Tel Aviv and Israeli ethnicities

“…Thus, even though Jewish ethnic distinctions are primarily cultural and symbolic, racist power relations and discrimination against Mizrahim are well documented (Sasson-Levy and Shoshana, 2013;Semyonov and Lewin-Epstein, 2011). However local, the category of Ashkenaziness is similar in many ways to the unmarked construction of whiteness, symbolically contrasted with Mizrahiness, which is often marked as ethnic (Sasson-Levy, 2013).…”