Jewish Welfare in Hamburg and Manchester, c. 1850-1914 (review)

Jewish Welfare in Hamburg and Manchester, c. 1850-1914, by Rainer Liedtke; pp. viii + 266. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998, $69.00.

Jewish history is a particularly useful testing ground for the comparative method. Jewish communities have been present in most Western societies at some point in the past and the study of their experiences can illuminate a variety of questions. However, an understandable concentration of research on the Jewish experience in Germany has led to the mistaken assumption that the history of German Jewry was paradigmatic for the rest of Europe. British Jewry, by comparison, has been neglected. Despite this, Rainer Liedtke has been able to build upon the work of a small group of British historians, such as Tony Kushner, David Cesarini, and Bill Williams. In the process, Liedtke has written an important book which opens new avenues of research and attempts to answer some key questions about Jewish identity in post-emancipation Europe. It is also a valuable contribution to comparative urban history with much that will interest historians of social welfare.

Although Liedtke deliberately avoids the question of "comparability," the choice of Hamburg and Manchester as case studies is apt. The chronology and precise character of their economic and social development differed but there were distinct similarities. Both experienced rapid population growth during the nineteenth century; both had significant immigrant communities; both had complex economic structures, in which commerce and international trade were significant. Both cities had diverse social structures, with a large class of businessmen and professionals, plus complex middle orders of artisans, craftsmen, shopkeepers, and clerks. Politically, however, their histories were very different, with Hamburg's experience of centuries of self-government as a city-state (relinquished in 1871 upon its incorporation into the new Germany) contrasting with Manchester's status as a late developer politically, with municipal self-government and city status itself not achieved till 1838 and 1853 respectively. The Jewish communities in both cities had long, although differing, histories. In the later-nineteenth century, Manchester had the largest Jewish community outside London whilst Hamburg's Jewish population, once the largest in Germany, was in decline. Despite contrasting political traditions, both communities had been granted civil rights by the 1860s.

Central to Liedtke's purpose is the extent to which the comparison of these two cities enables him to ask important questions about the respective roles of structure and culture in the development of the Jewish historical experience. Put another way, is there a definable "Jewishness" derived from traditions and customs which provides the key to Jewish development or is Jewish identity a product of specific historical circumstances and conditions? This comparison of Hamburg and Manchester suggests the greater significance of structure over culture. Contingent historical circumstances were more critical than tradition in the negotiation of a secular identity for the Jewish communities of both cities.

The key element in Liedtke's argument is that the existence of separate welfare systems for the Jewish communities was a defining characteristic in the formation of a secular Jewish identity. No other religious or ethnic group found the need to sustain such a comprehensive welfare network. That they did so reflects real insecurity. Toleration rather than acceptance accompanied emancipation and the Jew in Germany was not German but "German-Jewish." In such uncongenial circumstances, the development of what Liedtke calls "a separate Jewish culture of welfare" (242) was a product of the tension between the aspiration for integration and the need for preservation.

Liedtke's is an innovative approach. Hitherto, studies of European Jewry have paid little attention to the role of secular associational life. The separate provision of welfare by and for Jews alone was intended to assist the process of acculturation. In large part, the intention was to enable Jewish society to acquire and maintain the balance between integration and preservation by obtaining a "respectable" place in bourgeois society. For example, motivated by the realisation that the mass immigration of...