The Golden Goblet with Scorpions – Jerusalem and Contemporary Israel

The article focuses on presenting the relations between the two largest cities of contemporary Israel – Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. These relations are depicted on three levels. The first is a cosmological level, the second level is known as historical, and the third one, which shows how the urban architectural space and its symbolic meanings is constructed. This presentation is a kind of sui generis introduction, that shows both possibilities and potential directions of further anthropological research in Israel, particularly in contemporary Jerusalem. The author critically refers to the concept of dichotomous division along the social line of Israelis lifestyle: on the one hand, stunning, focused on Western world, attractive – Tel Aviv, and on the other hand isolated, quite, religious, less attractive and more focused on Eastern world – Jerusalem. What is more, the author not only pays attention to internal ambiguity of Jerusalem but also to simultaneous affinity to various symbolic orders and to the resistance that is put up against those, who would like to hold it in demesne.
 

The article focuses on presenting the relations between the two largest cities of contemporary Israel – Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. These relations are depicted on three levels. The first is a cosmological level, the second level is known as historical, and the third one, which shows how the urban architectural space and its symbolic meanings is constructed. This presentation is a kind of sui generis introduction, that shows both possibilities and potential directions of further anthropological research in Israel, particularly in contemporary Jerusalem. The author critically refers to the concept of dichotomous division along the social line of Israelis lifestyle: on the one hand, stunning, focused on Western world, attractive – Tel Aviv, and on the other hand isolated, quite, religious, less attractive and more focused on Eastern world – Jerusalem. What is more, the author not only pays attention to internal ambiguity of Jerusalem but also to simultaneous affinity to various symbolic orders and to the resistance that is put up against those, who would like to hold it in demesne.