15 January 2015
László Lőrinc
(Discussion of the Teachers’ Network, 20 January 2015. Eötvös Loránd University, Faculty of Humanities)
In the vast arena of the grand lecture theatre, there was no gladiators’ battle between the historians down below. It was more like a clinical lecture, where eminent doctors presented the symptoms of a patient suffering from a grave disease, at some points arguing passionately with each other. The participants of the event (Stefano Bottoni, Gábor Gyáni, Gábor Klaniczay, Mónika Mátay, János M. Rainer and the moderator Tibor Valuch) nevertheless agreed on the most fundamental issues.
For example, on the fact that Hungarian historiography has not taken advantage of the opportunities that arose after 1989: it has feiled to join the international academic networks ever since. According to Klaniczay, this can be partly because the great old generation (Domokos Kosáry, Péter Hanák, etc.) did not pass on their foreign contacts to the upcoming generation. Hungarian historians do not publish enough in foreign languages and are not very open to collaboration with non-Hungarian colleagues; not only do they not lead international projects, but they do not participate in them very much. In addition, there is no cooperation between Hungarian historians’ workshops, and parallel research shows that they do not know very much about each other at all.
It also has to do with the international isolation that the preferences – both in terms of their attention and research orientation – of the majority of Hungarian historians have not followed those of their Western colleagues, as for example the new approaches to social history initiated by the Annales; the Hungarian workshops representing these approaches are small, isolated or in decline (Atelier, Collegium Budapest, Hajnal István Circle, etc.). Mátay recalled that projects along these lines are not supported by the OTKA (National Scientific Research Fund Programmes) either, and are being atrophied (see, for example, the research on the Tiszazug trials) one by one. Instead, Hungarian historiography, which is confined to national themes, continues to be dominated by political history and the “questions on which the destiny of the nation allegedly hinges”.
There was also agreement that since the turn of the millennium, and especially in recent years, politics has tried and is still trying to subjugate and influence historiography, to impose upon it its own version of history, which has led to a political polarisation within the profession. Klaniczay, to the bitter amusement of the audience, quoted former Prime Minister Péter Boross, chairman of the National Memorial and Commemoration Committee, denouncing the fact that the crimes of Hungarian soldiers during World War II “can even be taught from the university cathedra”, and Rainer calculated that next year’s budget will provide three billion forints solely for research into the recent past for institutions that the government has created with the sole aim of exerting its influence, partly directly under its own authority, and which have not done any meaningful work so far. Meanwhile, the more professional workshops of high standards (academic institutes, university departments, the 1956 Institute) are receiving less and less money (according to Gábor Czoch, the number of historians at ELTE has halved in recent times). Of the young historians who have just graduated, the only ones to get a job are those who agree to serve politics; apart from them, students who have no prospect of finding a job as historians are being taught at universities.
There was also talk of the retarded Hungarian collective memory, characterised by the exaggeration of national grievances, the shifting of responsibility, the questioning of modern Western values; all of which is greatly influenced by the floodlike spread of “public history”. There were also some references to public education, such as the new textbook system with a severely restricted choice of books, which blends harmoniously with the above processes.
It doesn’t matter who said which statement (first). Klaniczay, who analysed the given topic with as much composure and erudition as any historical anthropology subject at CEU, or Mátay, the popular social historian at ELTE, who spoke in a firm and straightforward manner, or the irrepressibly resigned, matter-of-fact, acerbic Rainer, whose institute, crammed into a relatively large catalogue drawer in the Széchényi Library, continues its academic work with similar composure, unruffled. It was essentially a matter of who in each round was the first to wriggle their way to the end of the microphone cord, which coiled around them like the snake of Laocoon.
The role of devil’s advocate was (should have been) played by the youngest perticipant, Bottoni, who, as he said, works also for one of the institutions (the National Remembrance Commission) created by the two-third Fidesz majority. He was also heated in this debate (“how cute”, a listener whispered to her girlfriend), but challenged only a small slice of what is written above. He would give a 50 per cent chance that the new academic institutions, peeping out from government’s pockets, would actually end up doing some meaningful work, and while he did not dispute the validity of the criticism of the leaders, he rejected the “character assassination” of those starting their careers there, saying let them start with a clean slate, regardless of where they came from.
In his opinion, the situation for historians in this country is still better than in the West, where societies can provide for relatively fewer professionals in the field, where there are no secure, lifelong jobs, where performance counts more, and where the money is provided by corporations and party foundations, so academic independence comes with its own caveats. He himself experienced stronger political (communist) pressure at his university in Italy than here. But, incidentally, he himself finds government science policy scandalously unprofessional, as well as – he was the only one to wander off on a half-sentence here – government policy in all other, more important areas. His opponents in this debate stressed that the question is not where the money comes from, but on what terms, and how much institutional autonomy science has.
The main character of the whole show was Gábor Gyáni, who was less impetuous than his young colleague, but as usual passionate, dynamic, fascinating and witty in his discussion of some basic issues, sometimes as a counterpoint to Bottoni. In his arguments, he not only distinguished historiography from politically motivated historianship, but also from popular historical literature and education.
He knows two types of historian. The first one fulfils the function of a propagandist and collaborator of politics: he is constantly making statements, writing popularising articles in the service of the powers that be, while doing no substantial research. (He could not have meant Bottoni himself, though, who is his research colleague at the Academy’s Institute of History) The other is a professional, a specialist with the ethos of an academic, uninfluenced by political games in the choice and results of his research. Gyáni himself refuses to even argue with propagandists, not out of haughtiness, but because he works according to a different logic, they have a different language, they are simply strangers to each other, not to mention the fact that he does not want to drag himself down into the filth of function. Of course, this can lead to inconveniences such as being restricted, even called a scoundrel, as recently happened with certain philosophers. Bottoni, on the other hand, very much resented the fact that historians refuse to talk to each other.
Furthermore, Gyáni argues that it is not the historian’s job to promote the results of science, and although he himself regularly does so in the form of the odd article, but to this end he castrates his own texts, since it is impossible to summarise the essence of the subject in an accessible way. Besides, he doubted that someone’s approach to history brought from their family upbringing could be changed at all. Bottoni, “with due respect”, did not agree with this either, as he believed that it was historians’ job to present their findings in a popular, accessible way, otherwise what would be the point? Rainer, too, as an educator of prospective teachers, cautiously expressed the hope that he could have an attitude-forming effect; for example, by having his students read Gyáni’s excellent arguments here.
The latter even distinguished the historian from the teacher: in his view, teaching is inevitably dominated by the historical canon, and he himself, when he teaches, tests only as much as he has taught – while the historian is the destroyer of canons. He was also critical of his own profession, just as in his work on postmodern history: he questioned how much of historiography is a purely exact science; it is as much art and writing, which is why he consistently spoke of historiography rather than the academic field – or mere science – of history.
A member of the audience, psychologist Júlia Vajda posed the question why we should join the “international mess” (the answer was that the real mess in the field of history is not abroad, but here in Hungary), while a biologist (Erzsébet Pásztor) asked why we don’t see much resistance on behalf of the NGOs of historians and historiographers (the answer was that albeit these NGOs exist, they are divided, so they are powerless in the face of the government’s intentions). A university student wondered whether the changing international political situation might lead to a “loosening up” USA taking a greater share of the funding for Hungarian historiography, to which Mátay – the student’s teacher – wryly observed that he should not be hoping to get a job as a result of another Cold War.
But what the presented patient and his relatives should or could hope for is left an open question.
László Lőrinc
25 January 2015.
An abridged version of the article was published on hvg.hu. This article is not based on an audio recording; the exact transcript and recording of the debate will be published soon by the Teachers’ Network.
