Jews, confronted by the absence of traditional unifying factors—a common territory, language, or religion—found themselves in a situation where the standard path of “opening one’s heart to the world” simply could not provide the necessary cohesion and preservation of uniqueness.

Forging Identity Through Shared Adversity

Jews, confronted by the absence of traditional unifying factors—a common territory, language, or religion—found themselves in a situation where the standard path of “opening one’s heart to the world” simply could not provide the necessary cohesion and preservation of uniqueness. The historical imperative was to define their identity not through universal cultural attributes, but through a distinct bond based on shared historical experience and a common threat. Thus, instead of pursuing complete integration with the external world, they chose a path that involved a complex, multi-layered self-definition as a nation, in which historical memory and resistance against a common enemy played a vital role.

This approach to identity formation is reflected in the following statement:
"Before him stood the difficult task of developing a definition of a nation that would suit the Jews—people who, by the end of the 19th century, possessed neither a common territory, nor a common language, nor a common religion. And then, in his speech 'Jewishness' (February 7, 1896), he said: 'I do not demand of the nation a common language or pronounced racial features. We are a historical community of people, bound to one another by a clearly distinguishable connection, and our cohesion is maintained by the presence of a common enemy.' Once again, Herzl presented his definition at the First Zionist Congress in October 1897: 'I am convinced that a nation is a group of people with a common historical past, united by the presence of a common enemy.'" (source: link txt)

Furthermore, another passage emphasizes that the formation of identity is always intertwined with certain market and social factors, where each group functions not only as a bearer of traditions but also as an object of investment. This implies that the complexity of the chosen path is also driven by the desire to maintain the unique position of the community in a changing world:
"These two processes are splendidly interwoven. For every act of identification (the creation or construction of identity) produces a figure that serves as an object of market investments. From this perspective, nothing is more attractive, nothing more profitable for the creation of new forms of monetary homogeneity than the community and its (or their) territories. For equivalence to become a process, the appearance of non-equivalence is required. What future awaits mercantile investments! What diversity of communities, with their claims asserting their cultural uniqueness and defending their rights!" (source: link txt)

Thus, the choice of a more intricate path in expressing cultural identity was driven not only by the historical lack of traditional unifying elements and the necessity of self-definition through a common threat, but also by socio-economic mechanisms that supported the preservation and strengthening of a unique cultural self-perception. This approach enabled the Jews to retain their distinctiveness and cohesion under circumstances where openness to the world might have led to the loss of these essential characteristics.