"Hungarian Supremacy Cannot Be Debated". Hungarian Conservative Sociologists on the Nationalities Question (1908–1918)

In: Acta Universitatis Sapientiae. Social analysis, Volume 13, Issue 1, p. 64-78

Abstract

Abstract

Magyar Társadalomtudományi Szemle (MTSZ), i.e. Hungarian Review of Social Sciences, was published between 1908 and 1918, and it was the highest-toned journal of contemporary Hungarian conservative sociology. At that time, in the last years of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, one of the most pressing social issues was the nationalities question: what rights belong to non-Hungarian-speaking nationalities living in the territory of the Kingdom of Hungary? This question was answered by two schools of tender-aged Hungarian social science. In general, liberal-left sociologists following Western scientific patterns believed that the language and cultural rights of national minorities need to be expanded. Conservatives, on the other hand, called for a restrictive policy to maintain the territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Hungary. The analysis of the authors and writings in favour of the extension of rights has been completed (Litván 1978, 2006; Litván–Szücs 1973). Conservative sociologists who support the restriction, however, have so far received almost no attention in the history of sociology. In this writing, I would like to fill this gap. After the short institutional presentation of contemporary conservative sociology, I will focus on their central journal, MTSZ. I will analyse the articles in which the authors have taken a position on the nationalities question. I argue that the articles published in the MTSZ have primarily addressed the nationalities question as a political and demographic issue. Therefore, I will describe these two types of writing. (Beyond that, some articles focused on social theory, culture, or education when writing about the rights of non-Hungarian-speaking minorities.) My basic question is how those aspects of the nationalities question appeared in MTSZ and how those all create a specific political store of knowledge. If we get answers to this, not only will we shed light on one of the forgotten but exciting schools of early Central European social science, but perhaps the history of the first quarter of the 20th century will also be better understood.