Suchergebnisse

The concept of security and the security culture of the state are always social constructs reflecting the outcome of interactions between state and society. Key categories of security, like dangerous social groups and activities are usually negotiated through these interactions. Politicians, secret agents, gendarms, denunciators, journalists, or the indicted, all shape the broader social meaning in a dynamic way. While in Greater Romania the state attempted to extend its control to ever broader segments of society in order to fend off perceived threats it had to rely on its own personnel and on people who cooperated in this effort, creating room for maneuver for everyone involved in this process. Due to its scarce resources the state could not even control entirely its own representatives, who often pursued a personal agenda different from the state's own goals. Irredentism, associated with ethnic minorities exemplifies this situation quite well. In an effort to preempt any threat from national minorities with a kin-state gradually led to the association of irredentism with ethnicity, without having control over the latter's exact meaning. Thus, its practical application depended on a series of factors, personal and structural ones, that finally led to a confusion and to the emptying of the concept that was applied without consistency. It was exactly this development that reconstituted the gap between state and society that actively engaged each other in the resulting process of negotiation. Under the surface of the rule of law and against the backdrop of the image of an ever more powerful state security apparatus, state and society defined together those informal rules of everyday co-existence that were often meant to hide reality from the watchful eyes of Bucharest.

The paper outlines how the portrayal of "us" and "them" changed during the interwar period in the relational web from Prague to Bucharest. The collapse of the Monarchy had shaken some of the foundations of national self-perceptions and brought to the fore hitherto insignificant groups either as active protagonists of politics of identity or as significant others. Nevertheless, the old representations of each other had changed less markedly. The real novelty of the period was that the appearance of Hungarian minorities and their politics of identity enabled the creation of some temporary group constructs that transcended traditional ethnic boundaries and redefined ethnicity on a more region-centred basis

This article analyzes national loyalty and identification by examining the language exams administered to minority public officials in Romania in 1934 and 1935. The exams aimed at testing officials' knowledge of the state language, but given the broader political context they were more than a survey of linguistic skills. Examinees were singled out as non-Romanian and subjected to an additional requirement not demanded from their ethnic Romanian colleagues, interpreting the use of the official language as a sign of loyalty. Drawing upon theories of loyalty as a historical concept, the paper analyzes how the particular situation of minority public officials was reflected in these texts and how they created a specific identification for themselves, composed of important elements of their minority ethnicity but also expressing their identification with the state and its modernizing goals as members of a unified, professional public body. The language exams signaled the emergence of a specific category of minority public servants who were part of both the minority group and the middle-class functionaries of the Romanian state. Nationalist public discourse on both sides—Romanian and minority—have denied and erased the history of these hybrid loyalties and identities, but the languages exams help us to recover them.

The collapse of the Habsburg Monarchy at the end of World War I ushered in a period of radical change for East-Central European political structures and national identities. Yet this transformed landscape inevitably still bore the traces of its imperial past. Breaking with traditional histories that take 1918 as a strict line of demarcation, this collection focuses on the complexities that attended the transition from the Habsburg Empire to its successor states. In so doing, it produces new and more nuanced insights into the persistence and effectiveness of imperial institutions, as well as the sources of instability in the newly formed nation-states

Thinking through Transition is the first concentrated effort to explore the most recent chapter of East Central European past from the perspective of intellectual history. Post-communism can be understood as a period of scarcity and preponderance of ideas, the dramatic eclipsing of the dissident legacy (as well as the older political traditions), and the rise of technocratic and post-political governance. This book, grounded in empirical research sensitive to local contexts, proposes instead a history of adaptations, entanglements, and unintended consequences. In order to enable and invite comparison, the volume is structured around major domains of political thought, some of them generic (liberalism, conservatism, the Left), others (populism and politics of history) deemed typical for post-socialism. However, as shown by the authors, the generic often turns out to be heavily dependent on its immediate setting, and the typical resonates with processes that are anything but vernacular