Mátyás Rákosi, first secretary of the Hungarian Workers' Party, was forced to resign by soviet Politburo member Anastas Mikoyan on 18th July, 1956. He was followed by Ernő Gerő, who was also a hated man, responsible for all economic decisions in earlier years and taking part in a leadership which had committed serious crimes. He remained in power for three months only, until the October 1956 Revolution. Although Gerő announced political reforms, historians regard it only as a tactical step. This study suggests that these reforms, named "clear sheet", or "tabula rasa" policy, were in fact serious steps toward a "socialist democracy". What is more, these steps were not only announced but many of them was also taken. However, three months were not enough for Gerő to introduce all changes, because he was also engaged in neutralizing the activity of the party opposition lead by Imre Nagy's group. The study analyzes these reforms (e.g. increasing the role of the National Assembly, restoring the "socialist legality", decentralization, improving the living standards of the society, broadening the freedom of speech, giving greater support to the intellectuals etc.). To sum up, it can be stated that these reforms have a lot in common with the reforms of Imre Nagy in 1953. Surprisingly, it seems that the so-called "soft dictatorship" would have started much earlier, already in 1956, instead of 1963. The later reforms of János Kádár, introduced gradually in the 1960s (and sometimes only in the 1980s) probably originated also from this period of time, the Summer of'56. This study has much more questions than answers, its aim is to generate a new debate on Gerő's first secretariat hoping that a better understanding of this period can be reached. The most important questions are the following: why did the Revolution exacdy break out; how would it be possible to avoid it and, most interestingly, what would have happened if the Revolution did not break out at all?
Der Begriff 'Bildungsferne' – in Deutschland eher auf politischer als auf wissenschaftlicher Ebene verwendet – beschreibt mehr als das Fehlen (höherer) formaler Bildungsabschlüsse und ist deshalb nicht gleichzusetzen mit Geringqualifizierung. In seinem Zusammenhang steht auch die Frage nach den Bildungschancen, d.h. dem Zugang zu Bildungsmöglichkeiten. Bildungsferne bezeichnet damit zunächst eine Benachteiligung in Bezug auf Bildungschancen, v.a. gegründet auf soziodemographische Faktoren, wie soziale Herkunft und Sozialisation, regionale Herkunft, Migrationshintergrund, Alter, Behinderung etc. Wenn von bildungsfernen Gruppen die Rede ist, wird jedoch außerdem zumeist auf wirtschaftliche schwache, gering qualifizierte, lernungewohnte Bevölkerungsgruppen Bezug genommen, für die der Zugang zu (Weiter-)Bildungsmöglichkeiten aufgrund ihrer sozialen und ökonomischen Voraussetzungen eingeschränkt ist und in deren sozialen Milieus Bildung einen geringen Stellenwert einnimmt. m Rahmen eines interkulturellen Lehr-Forschungs-Projektes der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena und der Eötvös-Loránd-Universität Budapest wurde in einer in beiden Ländern geführten empirischen Studie untersucht, ob Frauen in den beiden untersuchten Ländern eine bildungsferne Gruppe ausmachen, inwieweit Frauen in der ungarischen und der deutschen Gesellschaft heute noch benachteiligt sind und wie Bildung einer evtl. Benachteiligung entgegenwirken kann? Dazu wird zunächst die Situation von Frauen in der ungarischen und der deutschen Gesellschaft dargestellt und durch Gespräche mit Vertretern der Arbeitsämter sowie durch die Vorstellung von Bildungsangeboten speziell für Frauen in den beiden Ländern Antwort auf die Fragen gesucht. Weitere von anderen Gruppen in diesem Zwei-Länder-Projekt untersuchte Fragestellungen waren: o Potenziale des Alterns (http://www.db-thueringen.de/servlets/DocumentServlet?id=9749) o Fremdsprachenerwerb in der Erwachsenenbildung (http://www.db-thueringen.de/servlets/DocumentServlet?id=9894) *************************** ; The notion 'Bildungsferne' (appr. distance to learning), which is in Germany rather used on a political than on a scientific level, mainly describes the lack of (higher) formal educational achievements and is therefore not the same as lower qualification. Furthermore questions regarding the access to educational opportunities arise when examining this notion. First of all 'Bildungsferne' means discrimination with regard to educational opportunities, mainly based on sociodemographic factors, such as social background and socialization, regional provenance, migration background, age, disability, etc. When considering groups distal to learning one usually refers to people who are deprived, less qualified and who are not used to learning (anymore). Due to their social and economic prerequisites and because of the minor role which education plays within their social environment access to (further) educational opportunities is less important for this population group. In the context of an intercultural research project, which was realized by the Friedrich Schiller University of Jena and the Eötvös Loránd University of Budapest, it was examined, with the help of an empirical survey that was conducted in both countries, if women in both countries can be regarded as a group which is distal to learning, in how far women are still discriminated within the Hungarian and German society and in which way can education work against possible discrimination? Therefore the situation of women in the Hungarian and German society will be described and with the help of interviews, done with representatives of the respective employment centre, as well as the presentation of special educational opportunities for women, these questions will be answered. Further questions considered throughout this intercultural research project were: o Potentials of Senior Age (http://www.db-thueringen.de/servlets/DocumentServlet?id=9749) o How can adults learn foreign languages? (http://www.db-thueringen.de/servlets/DocumentServlet?id=9894) ***************************
Rad počiva na ideji evropskog kulturnog identiteta, pojma koji se, poslednjih decenija posebno, etablirao kao važno uporište evropske političke zajednice, zajedničkih evropskih vrednosti ali i značajnih drugosti koje uprkos heterogenosti i asimetričnosti prisutnih kultura, zajedno tvore jedinstveni evropski kulturno-istorijski prostor Evrope. Različiti integrativni procesi koji se danas sve intenzivnije odvijaju, doprinose brzoj promeni konstelacija društava i re-konfiguraciji geopolitičkog, socio-ekonomskog i kulturnog ambijenta Evrope, tražeći novo sagledavanje tvorbe evropskog kulturnog identiteta koji nastaje kao rezultat tih različitih kretanja. Medij filma stoga, predstavlja idealnu perspektivu sagledavanja tvorbe evropskog transnacionanog kulturnog identiteta. Pitanje (ne)postojanja evropskog identiteta sagledano je kroz korpus teorija studija filma i medija i drugih, a na primerima dvadeset sedam (27) filmova laureata godišnje nagrade za najbolji evropski film (EFAs), Evropske filmske akademije (EFA), u periodu 1989–2014. godine, čiji su autori, između ostalih, Pedro Almodovar (Pedro Almodovar), Mihael haneke (Michael Haneke), Paolo Sorentino (Paolo Sorrentino), Lars fon Trir (Lars von Trier, i drugi. U ovoj disertaciji, evropski kulturni identitet sagledan je kroz filmske i kinematografske upise, preko kategorija identitetske drugosti, akcentovanih i asimilovanih identiteta, kao i preko elemenata (ko)produkcione drugosti. U istraživanju smo pošli od pretpostavke da filmovi nagrađeni za najbolji evropski fil nagradom EFAs nose elemente narativa interne drugosti, duboko podeljene Evrope, koji učestvuju u konstrukciji evropskog kulturno supra-identiteta u/na filmu kao i da se evropksi kulturni identitet u filmskim ostvarenjima laureata EFAs, gradi kroz dijalog Evrope, odnosno Evropske unije sa nacionalnim kinematografijama. Sa tog polazišta pristupilo se i istraživanju fenomena evropskog kulturnog identiteta drugosti. Cilj istraživanja bio je da se u kontekstu društveno-istorijskih i političkih procesa identifikuju i objasne elementi građenja identiteta kao i da se istakne uloga drugosti u formiranju evropskog kulturnog identiteta. Istraživačka pitanja u vezi sa odnosima međuzavisnosti koje formiraju pojmovi Evropa, identitet, drugost, evropski film i evropska nagrada u građenju prepoznatljivog fenomena evropskog kulturnog identiteta i fenomena evropskog filma. Problemska osnova na temelju koje je strukturisana analiza i sistematizovani naslovi nagrađenih filmskih ostvarenja u studiji slučaja, izvedena je iz teorijskih postavki koje se odnose na sledeće fenomene i pojmove: fazu ogledala Žaka Lakana (Jacques Lacan), heterotopije Mišela Fukoa (Michael Foucault), deteritorijalizacije / nomadizma Žila Deleza i Feliksa Gatarija ( Jules Deleuze / Félix Guattari), granice Jurija Lotmana (Yuri Lottman) i liminalnosti Arnolda van Genepa (Arnold van Gennep), kao postuliranje postmodernističkih tendencija u kojima se reflektuje pitanje (evropskog) kulturnog identiteta, primenjeno na polje filmske odnosno ekranske umetnosti. Svedoci smo da se u složenim procesima integracije i previranja nacionalnih i transnacionalnih tokova u Evropi, u periodu nakon pada Berlinskog zida (1989–2014), evropski kulturni identitet u/na filmu iznova konstruisao kroz narative drugosti, rezultirajući višestrukim akcentovanim i asimilovanim identitetima, što se pokazuje na primerima filmskih ostvarenja nagrađenih za najbolji evropski film EFAs. Činjenica je da značajne evrospke institucije u svojim dokumentima evropski identitet navode kao realitet, uprkos činjenici da sama konstrukcija evropskog identiteta ukazuje na (nezavršen) permanentan proces. Temeljne pretpostavke ovog istraživana su stoga: 1. nije reč o (id)entitetu kao o datosti; 2. identitet se gradi u društvenoj interakciji; 3. drugosti su sastavni deo (kulturnog) identiteta; 4. razlikama se obogaćuju i druge kulture; 5. evropski kulturni identitet je proces tj. gradilište u permanentnom nastajanju. Ishod analitičko-istraživačkog procesa je potvrđivanje da evropski kulturni identitet jeste skup različitosti tj. drugosti koje tvore jedan entitet, evropski kulturni identitet, koji međutim nije moguće fiksirati i precizno definisati, te on nadalje ostaje fenomen otvoren za različite interpretacije. ; The work is based on the idea of European cultural identity, a concept that, in recent decades, in particular, has established itself as an important mainstay of the European political community, common European values but also significant otherness which, despite the heterogeneity and asymmetry of present cultures, together form a unique cultural and historical space of Europe. The various integrative processes that are increasingly intensifying nowadays contribute to the rapid change of constellations of societies and re-configuration of the geopolitical, socioeconomic and cultural environment of Europe, seeking a new perception and definition of both national and European cultural identity that ensues from these various developments. The medium of film, therefore, represents an ideal perspective of perceiving the creation of a European transnational cultural identity. The issue of (non)existence of European identity is considered through a corpus of theories of Film and Media Studies and others, and on the examples of twenty-seven (27) films, laureates of the annual award for the best European film (EFAs) of the European Film Academy (EFA) in the period 1989−2014, whose authors are, among others, Pedro Almodovar, Michael Haneke, Paolo Sorrentino, Lars von Trier and others. In this dissertation, European cultural identity is viewed through film and cinematic inscriptions, through the categories of identity otherness, accented and assimilated identities, as well as through the elements of (co)production otherness. In the research we started from the assumption that the films awarded for the best European film by the EFAs award carry elements of narratives of internal otherness, of a deeply divided Europe, which participate in the construction of European cultural supra-identity in/on film and that European cultural identity in the film achievements of EFAs laureates is built through the dialogue of Europe, i.e. the European Union with national cinemas. That was the starting point for the research of the phenomenon of the European cultural identity of otherness. The aim of the research was to identify and explain the elements of identity construction in the context of socio-historical and political processes, as well as to emphasize the role of otherness in the formation of European cultural identity. Research questions are related to the interdependence relations formed by the concepts of Europe, identity, otherness, European film and the European award in building a recognizable phenomenon of European cultural identity and the phenomenon of European film. The problem basis on which the analysis and systematized titles of the awarded film achievements in the case study are structured is derived from theoretical assumptions related to the following phenomena and concepts: Jacques Lacan's mirror phase, Michael Foucault's heterotopias, deterritorialization and the nomadism of Jules Deleuze and Félix Guattari, the boundaries of Yuri Lottman and the liminality of Arnold van Gennep, as a postulation of postmodernist tendencies that reflect the question of (European) cultural identity, applied to the field of film or screen arts. We are witnesses that in the complex processes of integration and turmoil of national and transnational trends in Europe, in the period after the fall of the Berlin Wall (1989–2014), European cultural identity in/on film was reconstructed through narratives of otherness, resulting in multiple accented and assimilated identities, as shown by examples of film achievements awarded with EFAs for the best European film. The fact is that important European institutions recognize European identity as a reality in their documents, despite the fact that the very construction of European identity indicates a(n) (unfinished) permanent process. The basic assumptions of this research are therefore: 1. it is not about (id)entity as a given; 2. identity is built in social interaction; 3. otherness is an integral part of (cultural) identity; 4. differences also enrich other cultures; 5. European cultural identity is a process, i.e. a permanent construction site. The outcome of the analytical-research process is the confirmation that the European cultural identity is a set of differences/othernesses that form one entity, the European cultural identity, which, however, cannot be fixed and precisely defined, and it still remains a phenomenon open to different interpretations.
