Cultural citizenship and performing homecoming: Russian Jewish immigrants decipher the Zionist national ethos

Abstract

The paper explores the mutual relation between cultural citizenship and national homecoming. Using the case study of Russian-Jewish immigrants in Israel, it refines the theoretical debate over cultural citizenship by showing how homecoming migration shapes the homecomers' bargaining power over the local cultural tenets. In particular, the research examines the ways in which the 'Russian' immigrants negotiate the national ethos of homecoming that constitutes the Israeli civic, discursive field, while dismantling it into its root components: affinity to the place, collective memory, and the warrior ethos. Each of these components constitutes a sphere of action that embodies the tension between Israeliness and Jewishness, nationalism and citizenship, and the personal and the collective. Our main contention is that in the case of homecoming migration, the inextricable affinity between citizenship and nationalism shapes the homecomers' cultural citizenship: on the one hand, it secures their right to participate in the local cultural discourse and avails bargaining power, while on the other hand, it neutralizes the homecomers' subversive voice, and reduces their capacity to undermine the constitutive, national tenets. The analysis is based on immigration stories gathered via in-depth interviews that were conducted with 43 Jewish university students who immigrated to Israel from the former USSR in the beginning of the 1990s.

Celebrating Memory and Belonging: Young Russian Israelis Claim Their Unique Place in Tel-Aviv’s Urban Space

“…Fishka participants are experiencing rapid bourgeoisification and integration into the consumer society, manifesting orientation towards the country’s Ashkenazi elite and fashionable groups of Tel-Aviv cityscape. As homecomers (Lomsky-Feder and Rapoport 2008), they aspire to belong to the Jewish majority in the urban space. This aspiration, in a sense, neutralizes their subversive voice and reduces their capacity to undermine the constitutive national values.…”

“…It relates to the duality of immigrant locations, whereas their belonging doesn’t imply unconditional adoption of the local ethos, while criticism doesn’t mean its total rejection. The new approach of Israeli sociologists posits that the belonging of Russian immigrants in Israel is a complex process full of contradictions that is founded on a nonbinary epistemology, breaking the dominant dichotomy in the older Israeli literature on immigration between assimilation and segregation (Roberman 2007; Lomsky-Feder and Rapoport 2008, 2012; Lerner 2013).…”

Historical apologies as acts of symbolic inclusion – and exclusion? Reflections on institutional apologies as politics of cultural citizenship

“…Thus 'history' is mobilized for the purposes of designating the criteria of citizenship, and politics of history merges with politics of cultural citizenship, with a potentially exclusionary effect. (As example see also, Lomsky-Feder & Rapoport 2008. ) This brings us to where we started the discussion, with Finnish Prime Minister at the monument for the deported Jewish refugees in Helsinki on a November day 2000.…”

Weddings in the Town Square: Young Russian Israelis Protest the Religious Control of Marriage in Tel–Aviv

“…Some Israeli sociologists describe the belonging aspirations of Russian immigrants as active, varied, and full of contradictions; they are founded on a nonbinary epistemology, breaking the dichotomy, dominant in the earlier Israeli immigration literature, between their assimilation and segregation (Lerner ; Lomsky‐Feder and Rapoport , ; Roberman ). The term “belonging by criticism” coined by Lomsky‐Feder and Rapoport () describes the dual process experienced by these immigrants: Belonging doesn't imply their unconditional adoption of the local ethos whereas criticism doesn't mean its rejection.…”