ABSTRACT Semites, Semitism, the Semitic, the Semite. We all know the terms: we’ve heard them many times. We know of Semitic languages, we know of growing antisemitism, and we are familiar with book titles about Semites and Semitic cultures. And yet, these terms, these words, these adjectives remain for us today somewhat misty, imprecise and ambiguous in a way they did not seem to be for readers of nineteenth-century philology, theology or travel journals. Who are the Semites? What makes a culture Semitic? These today are questions we find hard to answer. But perhaps the terms belong to the past. Indeed, is there any good reason to return to the Semite? To revive and revisit the concept of Semitism? Should we not just let it go, die, fade into oblivion, together with many other nineteenth-century colonial, imperial and racist terms? Hochberg’s essay attends to these questions by engaging with several artistic projects that return to the figure of the Semite and revive it into current political contexts. Hochberg argues that today, perhaps more than ever, we must remember the Semite and, by the same token, re-remember the Semites: the Arabs and the Jews. This, she suggests, is important because it may be very useful to compare nineteenth-century European discussions of the Semitic mentality to today’s discourse on refugees and immigrants (particularly Muslims), but also because ‘the Semite’ enables us to make historical connections between antisemitism and Islamophobia, as well as between Jews and Muslims/Arabs. These connections are particularly worthwhile in the European, Christian and western context in which Jews and Muslims/Arabs have been more recently positioned against each other, and often played against one another. Finally, to revive the figure of the Semite, or the so-called ‘Semitic bond’ between Jews and Muslims, is not to cling to anachronism and nostalgic fantasies about the past or to romanticize the relationships between these people. In fact, it has little, if anything, to do with the past or history altogether. This ‘rememory’, to borrow Toni Morrison’s term, is not a historical project; rather, it is about returning to the present by rejecting its confining myths.

中文翻译：

---

从“性感闪米特人”到闪米特鬼魂：阿拉伯和犹太人之间的当代艺术

摘要 闪米特人，闪米特人，闪米特人，闪米特人。我们都知道这些术语：我们已经听过很多次了。我们知道闪米特语言，我们知道反犹主义日益增长，我们熟悉关于闪米特人和闪米特文化的书名。然而，这些术语、这些词语、这些形容词对今天的我们来说仍然有些模糊、不精确和模棱两可，而对于 19 世纪语言学、神学或旅行期刊的读者来说，它们似乎并不如此。谁是闪米特人？是什么造就了闪米特文化？这些是我们今天难以回答的问题。但也许这些条款属于过去。确实，有什么好的理由回到闪米特人吗？复兴并重新审视闪族主义的概念？我们不应该让它和许多其他 19 世纪的殖民者一起，让它消失，死去，被遗忘，帝国和种族主义条款？Hochberg 的文章通过参与几个艺术项目来解决这些问题，这些项目回归闪米特人的形象，并将其重新融入当前的政治背景。霍赫伯格认为，今天，也许比以往任何时候都更需要记住闪米特人，同样地，我们必须记住闪米特人：阿拉伯人和犹太人。她认为，这很重要，因为将 19 世纪欧洲关于闪族心态的讨论与今天关于难民和移民（尤其是穆斯林）的讨论进行比较可能非常有用，而且还因为“闪族”使我们能够在两者之间建立历史联系。反犹太主义和伊斯兰恐惧症，以及犹太人和穆斯林/阿拉伯人之间。这些联系在欧洲尤其值得，在基督教和西方的背景下，犹太人和穆斯林/阿拉伯人最近相互对抗，并且经常相互对抗。最后，要复兴闪米特人的形象，或者说犹太人和穆斯林之间所谓的“闪米特纽带”，并不是坚持时代错误和对过去的怀旧幻想，也不是将这些人之间的关系浪漫化。事实上，它与过去或历史几乎没有任何关系。借用托尼·莫里森 (Toni Morrison) 的术语，这种“回忆”不是一个历史项目；相反，它是通过拒绝其局限的神话回到现在。不是执着于对过去的时代错误和怀旧幻想，也不是将这些人之间的关系浪漫化。事实上，它与过去或历史几乎没有任何关系。借用托尼·莫里森 (Toni Morrison) 的术语，这种“回忆”不是一个历史项目；相反，它是通过拒绝其局限的神话回到现在。不是执着于对过去的时代错误和怀旧幻想，也不是将这些人之间的关系浪漫化。事实上，它与过去或历史几乎没有任何关系。借用托尼·莫里森 (Toni Morrison) 的术语，这种“回忆”不是一个历史项目；相反，它是通过拒绝其局限的神话回到现在。