Minding the Body: Space, Memory, and Visual Culture in Constructions of Jewish Identity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

A terrific read – outstanding engagement with ideas of space and culture in relation to two divergent visual culture case studies. A sound and reliable discussion of the liminal phenomenological positioning, structuring, and layering of accurately researched Jewish selfhoods, and an engaging, analysis of Jewish identities. A necessary and compelling argumentation that addresses the anti-Israel feelings and antisemitic nostalgia lethally blended with a redolence of white Christian male straight able privilege that we see today in the world. A very good article on symbolism of Yad Vashem. 

Author Response

As the reviewer was satisfied with the content, research, and analysis of Jewish identities presented in this essay, I don't have any further response.

Reviewer 2 Report

The aim and goals of research should be presented in the introduction.

The conclusions is a final part, which gives answers and doesn't raise new questions (lines 718-725). The conclusions must answer to the aim and the main questions of research presented in lines 32-37.

Theoretical part about embodied spaces should be more elaborated and  more conceptual. To improve the coherence and conceptual clarity of the article, it is necessary to provide a more in-depth exploration of the concept of body, embodied memory, (post)memory, spaces and other related terms. It is essential to establish clear and logical connections between the two case studies to better illustrate their relevance to the broader topic at hand. 

The article requires revision, as two of the case studies presented are loosely connected. Although the two case studies themselves are valuable, they do not cohesively contribute to the overall argument of the article. To enhance the article's impact and strengthen its argument I propose to explain the main motives of selection, to conceptualise two cases according to one conceptual axis. This will provide a more comprehensive and coherent understanding of the research presented.

Author Response

Point 1: The aim and goals of research should be presented in the introduction:

Response: Lines 34-57 address the aim and goals of the research. They are presented in the third and final paragraph of the introduction to the essay.

Point 2: The conclusions is a final part, which gives answers and doesn't raise new questions (lines 718-725). The conclusions must answer to the aim and the main questions of research presented in lines 32-37.

Response: This comment is unclear, but I take it to mean that the reviewer would like me to raise new questions. Lines 685-728  review conclusions presented in the earlier analysis, and the final sentences of the conclusion raise new questions informed by the "conceptual axis" I advance in this essay (lines 732-737). These questions are intended to encourage readers to apply the conceptual axis to develop a  more nuanced self-understanding when it comes to their own constructions of identity. 

Point 3: Theoretical part about embodied spaces should be more elaborated and  more conceptual. To improve the coherence and conceptual clarity of the article, it is necessary to provide a more in-depth exploration of the concept of body, embodied memory, (post)memory, spaces and other related terms. It is essential to establish clear and logical connections between the two case studies to better illustrate their relevance to the broader topic at hand. 

Response: I have taken these comments to heart and reviewed the essay multiple times to further examine and to clarify the role of representation in forging direct memories, postmemory, and collective memory, well as its bodily connections. I have consulted further articles about memory and tried to incorporate more clarifying explanations about how memory, space, and body converge when it comes to identity construction (see lines 114-126). Additionally, I have attempted to establish the connections between the two case studies by bringing into starker relief the contrast between them, and that each is used as a way to explain and to test the efficacy of the entangled theoretical model I am proposing, which draws upon memory, space, and bodily movement (lines 46-57). 

Point 4: The article requires revision, as two of the case studies presented are loosely connected. Although the two case studies themselves are valuable, they do not cohesively contribute to the overall argument of the article. To enhance the article's impact and strengthen its argument I propose to explain the main motives of selection, to conceptualise two cases according to one conceptual axis. This will provide a more comprehensive and coherent understanding of the research presented.

Response: This feedback is somewhat redundant of the feedback from point 3, especially regarding the case studies. I hope that I have clarified why I have selected these two case studies; namely, because they are both responsive to a moment of rupture (lines 51-57), and yet they are antithetical in terms of how they each respond. The case study about Bill Wurtzel is much more personal and is intended as a model that could be followed to help readers  better understand how the ecosystems of the mind and body converge in their own sense of Jewish identity. 

Following the reviewer's suggestion, I have endeavored to take the theoretical threads dealing with memory, body, and space, and to twist then into an entwined and braided conceptual axis that is meant to be applied to each case study, and to encourage readers to do the same as a means to understand their own identities.