The conference "The Ghetto: From Venice to Chicago" invited researchers in history, literary studies and sociology, from the USA, Israel and Europe, to investigate the idea of the ghetto development from the early modern period to the present, and to examine the institutional, social, and cultural practices that have constituted (and constitute) ghettos in everyday life.

Opening the discussion on the early modern ghetto, EMILY MICHELSON (St Andrews) elaborated on when and why exiting the Roman ghetto was dangerous. Michelson introduced three major themes in her presentation: enclosure, porousness and spectatorship (referring to the ghetto as a theatre, and the group exit as a moment of transformation from invisible to visible). Subsequently, forms of exiting the Roman ghetto involved: ritual processions of groups of people to cemetery for funerals and ritual processions to oratory. Ritualisation of Jewish outings was shown to incite tensions and increased danger of violence between the Christians and Jews. In this instance, constant undercurrent of violence was acceptable by the high authorities of Rome.

Consequently, analysing forcing in and forcing out of the Venetian ghetto, FILIPPO DE VIVO (London) focused on the context between the Jews and Christians despite segregation; comparison between the Jewish ghetto and other minorities living in Venice; flourishing of culture in the Venetian ghetto. Firstly, in respect to the relation between segregation (enclosed in) and conversion (forcing out), the ghetto of Venice was recognized as a forerunner in forcing in the Jewish population. Unlike the centrally situated ghetto in Rome, the Venetian ghetto had a peripheral island location. Secondly, as De Vivo pointed out, segregation exposed the Jews living in the Venetian ghetto to continuous insecurity and threat of expulsion, as charters to stay were to be renewed every five years. Remarkably, unlike in Rome, the ghetto in Venice was not targeted by violence or subjected to periodical force preaching and humiliation rituals. Similarly, Jewish processions in Venice were less exposed due to the use of waterways and boats. Thirdly, addressing the flourishing of culture in the Venetian ghetto, De Vivo emphasized that the diverse population in the Venetian ghetto prompted its socio-economic and cultural heterogeneity. In this respect, enforced segregation turned the ghetto into a melting pot. Arguably, the ghetto made the Jews a unitary and homogeneous community as seen by others. At the same time, segregation also provided certain autonomy and self-control, making the ghetto function as a parallel republic. Nevertheless, the ghetto space also defined inferiority and otherness. Summing up the presentation, De Vivo concluded that the Venetian ghetto was not an urban village, the ghetto was a spatial stigma imposed on the Jewish population.

These presentations on the early modern ghetto prompted the symposium participants to draw parallels to injustices of the present moment, referring to the Roma camps in Rome or enclosures of African migrants in Italy.

In line with the debate, BRYAN CHEYETTE (Reading) examined the ghettos of the imagination, speaking about popularisation of the ghetto literature in the 19th century German tradition and works of Israel Zangwill. While analysing the Jewish ghetto nostalgia in German tradition, Cheyette observed that the Jewish ghetto literature initially resorted to an active fictionalisation of the ghetto, presenting it as a romanticised community. For example, „the poet of the ghetto“ Leopold Kompert (1822–1886) described the Bohemian ghetto of his youth. In this instance, Cheyette emphasised that Kompert’s works were written for the German readership in German language at the university in Vienna (rather than in Yiddish in yeshiva in Bohemia). Meanwhile, as noted by Cheyette, the works of Karl Emil Franzos (1848–1904) focused on Galicia, the eastern Jewish communities. Viewing Polish Galicia living in barbaric conditions, Franzos regarded Germanisation as a way to improve the situation. Summing up, Cheyette expanded on Israel Zangwill’s (1864–1926) fiction, which was preoccupied with the realistic writing on ghetto, melting pot and Zion, portraying the modern urban ghetto as an institution, looking to tradition but anticipating the new changes.

Further on, DAN MICHMAN (Jerusalem) argued if the Nazi era ghettos were connected in any way to the early modern ones. It was shown that the emergence of the first ghetto was not caused by a bureaucratic planning or internal bureaucratic logic, it presented the local decision at a certain moment of time. Accordingly, there was no typical Nazi ghetto, it was not a uniform phenomenon. The meaning, form and purpose of the ghetto changed several times during 1939–1940s. In addition, the ghetto phenomenon was found as not intrinsically linked to the Judenrat. Concluding the presentation, Michman acknowledged that the ghetto was a neighbourhood rather than a juridical layout. For the Jews the ghetto was a way of life, to the Germans it was an administrative measure.

Speaking about how the ghetto became black, MITCHELL DUNEIER (Princeton) provided an analysis of the books catalogue since 1928 analysing mentions of the word „ghetto“ in respect to the segregation of the African Americans. Accordingly, opportunistic borrowing of the word was explained in terms that the African Americans fighting during WWII against racial purity in Europe and witnessing the ghettos in Europe reflected on the situation back home in the USA where their parents were segregated. Thus, the term “ghetto” in the USA was shown to be primarily associated with the African American population rather than the Jews and, therefore, to bear no comparison with the genocide in Europe.

Final conclusive discussion of the symposium encouraged further remarks on the topic, including: the ghetto giving a symbolic significance to the urban space; the importance of politics (in a widest sense) in investing the urban space with meanings; the ghetto as a travelling concept changing sides and viewpoints; the role of media and authorities in naming and labelling „no-go areas“ and thus fostering ghettoisation; the psychological aspect of fear, as people when afraid tend to adhere to generalised stigmatisation; the emergence of gated communities for the privileged. As a result, connecting scholars within a broad range of disciplines, the symposium generated potential questions for further exploration of the topic.

Conference overview:

Emily Michelson (University of St Andrews): Exiting the Roman Ghetto: When was it Dangerous, and Why?

Filippo De Vivo (Birkbeck University of London): The Venetian Ghetto: Forcing In and Forcing Out

Bryan Cheyette (University of Reading): Ghettos of the Imagination: The Long Nineteenth-Century

Dan Michman (International Institute for Holocaust Research, Yad Vashem): The Nazi Era Ghettos: Are They Connected in Any Way to the Early Modern Ones?

Mitchell Duneier (Princeton University): How the Ghetto Became Black