This is the reason why we have launched the largest European antisemitism survey. The research, initiated by the Action and Protection League and carried out by the polling companies Ipsos and Inspira, aims to provide a comprehensive picture of antisemitic prejudice in 16 countries in the European Union.
Data were collected between December 2019 and January 2020 in 16 European countries: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom. 1000 people were surveyed in each country.
We used a total of 24 questions to measure antisemitism. We measured the cognitive and conative dimensions of prejudice with 10 questions, and three additional questions for the affective dimension of antisemitism, that is, to measure the emotional charge of antisemitic prejudice. We mapped secondary antisemitism relativizing the Holocaust with seven questions and antisemitic hostility against Israel with four questions. We used two and three questions, respectively, to measure sympathy for Jews and for Israel.
With the exception of questions about affective antisemitism, all questions were asked in the same form: Respondents were asked to indicate on a five-point scale how much they agreed with the statements in the question (strongly agree; tend to agree; neither agree nor disagree; tend to disagree; strongly disagree).
Between March and November 1999, under the auspices of the Minority Research Institute of the Department of Sociology, Eötvös Loránd University, I conducted a sociological survey of the current situation of the Jewish community in Hungary. In the course of the survey, 2015 respondents were interviewed. The most important demographic and social data were collected for four generations – from respondents’ grandparents to their children. Participants in the survey were asked to respond to questions concerning their relationship towards Jewish traditions and their acceptance or rejection of various forms of Jewish identity. They were also asked for their opinions on assimilation, integration and dissimilation, on Israel, and on the current significance of the Holocaust. Finally, an attempt was made to gauge the opinions of Hungarian Jews on the state of their own community, on their relationships with non-Jews, and on antisemitism in postcommunist Hungary.
My purpose in this article shall be to analyse the data that we collected in this latter area. Firstly, I shall reveal how Jews living in Hungary define antisemitism, and whether – when it comes to classifying particular statements as antisemitic – there are any significant differences between younger and older groups of Jews, between those who are better educated and those with less education, and between those with a stronger and those with a weaker sense of Jewish identity. I shall then explore how the various respondent groups judge the extent, intensity and gravity of anti-Jewish sentiment in the country, examining in particular whether respondents themselves have experienced such sentiment or have been subjected to discrimination. I shall reveal whether respondents think that antisemitism will increase or decrease in the coming years. Finally, I shall touch upon the policies that respondents consider desirable when it comes to tackling antisemitic phenomena. Evidently, the images formed by Jews and non-Jews shall determine in large part the relations between the two groups of one other.
to establish a common identity for groups that, for various reasons and motives, have turned against the liberal parliamentary system that replaced communism.
to norms – an acceptance of the philosemitic (or at least non-antisemitic) consensus of norms in the public realm. In such a context, the expression of attitudes relating to Jews is well served by the clichés which arose during the era of assimilation and are still fostered by both Jews and non-Jews concerning the beneficial role of Jews and their contribution to the country.
The other group of philosemites, however, is clearly characterised by allotic attitudes. This form of philosemitism is extremely fragile: the opinions and attitudes expressed by such philosemitism can be accommodated – sometimes without any modification or contradiction – in the context of political antisemitism.
represented Jewish causes. How did these politicians, who viewed Jews as a collectivity and sought to defend the Jews’ collective interests, act in the troublesome post-war decades?
jewish studies kutatási programja és a keren hayesod hungária alapítvány is támogatta. ez a beszámoló ennek a kutatásnak az eredményeit adja közre.
Jewish community in Bulgaria, Hungary, Latvia, Poland and Romania.
There was wide agreement among the populations’ value prioritization,
but they are not monolithic. Overall, family-related values were more
important than materialistic values. Those in Romania were the most
religious, those in Hungary the least so.
A graphic portrayal of the data is presented and interpreted, guided
by the Schwartz axiological typology. Sub-populations by home country
and age group are compared in the context of this model. The older
cohort tends towards Family-related values, while the younger cohort
tends towards values of Hedonism and Stimulation. The placement of
the national sub-groups illustrates their relative emphasis on materialist
values versus post-materialist values of self-enhancement, which reflects
the degree of democratization of the countries and the socio-economic
level of the Jewish communities.
Az antiszemitizmusról rengeteg szó esik, nagy a félelem, de a fogalom pontos jelentése, tartalma és kiterjedése beszélőtől és beszédhelyzettől függően elasztikusan változik. Tett és Védelem Alapítvány kezdeményezésére Kovács András szociológus szakmai irányítása mellett 2013-ban megvalósult felméréssel a társadalomban tapasztalható antiszemita érzületeket mérte egy 1200 fős mintán alapuló adatfelvétellel, amit a tervek szerint évente két alkalommal megismétlődik.
This report describes the process and results of a research study on Jewish identity and community participation in Central and Eastern Europe. In particular, it identifies trends among Jewish adults in Bulgaria, Hungary, Latvia, Poland, Romania. This two-year and wide-reaching study, examined views on religious observance, Jewish identity, anti-Semitism, Israel, Jewish knowledge, and organizational affiliation among 1,270 Jews, ages 18-60.
Part of a four-paper series looking at Jewish life in east-central Europe since the collapse of communism, the authors of the Hungary report highlight the existence of a sharp critique of community management structures, and recommend urgent structural reform.
The research was conducted by the leading specialist in the sociology of Hungarian Jewry, and was funded by the Rothschild Foundation (Hanadiv) Europe.
Today in Hungary, one end of the spectrum is filled by groups that continue to observe strictly Jewish religious traditions. At the other end of the spectrum, there are those for whom Jewish background is at most a fact of origin stored in the backroom of family memory and possessing no
public significance and little personal relevance. The majority Of Jews living in the country are to be found somewhere between the two extremes. The content of their identity may be the preservation of tradition at some level or other, or it may be a secular or ethnic-national consciousness of identity, or it may even be the preserving of the memory of forebears, ties With Jewish culture, or the feeling of being at home and of protection in a Jewish environment within Hungarian
Jews who preserve traditions are clearly following the strategy of acceptance, while those at the other end of the spectrum have chosen the strategy of rejection, Between the two extremes, both strategies are present, and positions are dynamic: in this group it is possible to observe strategies providing a release from the stigma of the Jews as well as strategies providing a rescue from the stigma. Often these strategies are employed alternately by successive generations.