What can politics use in the science of history? Miklós Király, a professor of international lawyers, asked the question at the House of Dialogue, where two historians, Balázs Ablonczy and Attila Pók, gave a talk at the Eötvös Group. The moderator admitted the beginning, the issue is very exciting, but certainly not new.
What is the relationship between history and politics, or does politics need history and the discoveries of history? He was quoted by János Zsámboky, who wrote II in 1567. For the emperor Mishsa: "History is the whole life of mankind and some kind of memory, and how the future depends on examples from the past, the present – if you get involved seriously into something – unite both times. "
But then what is history: a series of past events, whose relationships are precisely discovered by historical science through the professional, critical and impartial study of resources. But where does the past end and where does the present and politics begin? What does "Power of the Past" mean? said the moderator of Attila Spider's book published last year, immediately compensating for this: how can the story be known and discussed? The other speaker, Balázs Ablonczy, recently said, upon discovering the pale and unknown farewell letter of Pál Teleki, that "our past must be assembled from such tiny pieces."
Is it possible to completely reconstruct the past? And can this be rebuilt with credibility? Why is this policy important? Thousands of new and new questions were asked by Miklós Király and, finally, can one be a politician and historian at the same time if the intentions are so different? Can a good historian and a good politician be?
In other words, is it good for politics to write history or write?
Mutual fertilizer effects
Andi Andi, a writer quoted in the Hungarian Voice, cited a very violent way of thinking about politics and history, the tension between historians and even the opposite and irreconcilable difference: Attila Pók. The retired scientific advisor to the History Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences thought that the idea of his girlfriend, whom he himself did not want to follow, was a striking proposition. He believed that if one of the five paths between history, history, and society was politics, it was therefore somewhat ambiguous to ask why politics should be history.
For a politician, history is already indispensable for identification, but it is also a good tool to strengthen cohesion and social action.
History is also important in the search for justice, in the examples of truth, for social cohesion and mobilization, but it is clear that other personal or even power goals can influence the way politicians apply history. The arts, education, and culture are all political areas that were closely related to history, recalled the historian, who was able to give an easy answer to what it was like when he was both a politician and a historian.
Of course, Attila Pók believed that one could be a good historian and a good politician at the same time. However, it was clear in his presentation that the three decisive personalities of which he was speaking were as divisive as his political and historical activities.
His first example, and the longest analyzed by Leopold von Ranke, father of modern historiography, the historian of the Prussian state, was convinced that his age and a half were at the forefront of the universal history of European development. However, he described the story credibly, believing only that there was no further development in history.
Ranke largely defined later writing, introducing concepts such as dependence on primary sources, narrative historiography, and in particular the promotion of international politics (Aussenpolitik), and the commitment to write events "as he actually did." At the same time, his objectivity may be opposed and confronted by the fact that he found his age almost unbearable, said Spider, returning later to the fact that Rankus could be presented as a progressive but conservative thinker.
Photo: István Huszti / Index
One of the historians of the other two politicians and historians was Gyula Szekf, who, as the author of the Three Generations, is one of the leading ideologues of Horthy's system, while the post-1945 system also holds him in a privileged position. His role in public life, his German orientation and his opinion on Judaism are still controversial, but his work as a historian is generally welcome and quoted by Spider.
He also pointed out that Szekfű attached great importance to the Habsburg-Hungarian relationship, principally to the House of the Habsburgs and the Germanic-Roman Empire to Western Europe, condemning the nobility. One of Szekf maiss most influential theses is that the modern destruction of Hungary is due to the Turks, not to the Habsburgs, which is a position much later accepted and even still active. At the same time, these two historians share the view that, in the spirit of real politics, they should be marginalized from extremes, neither the right nor the left accept excessive displacement, Attila Pók said, recalling the debates about Ranke's personality and contrast between positivism and historicalism. analyzing their ideological basis, have come to the conclusion that the present can not be the final good state.
The third dominant political history of science personality Szucs Jeno said the artist, he is also in the best way, that after 1960 – in the context of Hungarian historical consciousness "nationalist remains" deployed in writing of Hungarian history and journalism Molnar Erik debate – a true discussion began. Szucs addressed in this nation's historical consciousness. In the 1970s, the 1970s were marked by serious public and scientific debates about history, history research.
In this sense, politics and history can be mutually fertile to one another. However, if we examine this relationship in terms of how a power tries to accept its own position, its identifying elements as scientists, then it is not
Spider finally concluded.
Strong state in a weakened scientific environment
History and politics have nothing to do with each other
Balázs Ablonczy said at once. The leader of the 100 research groups of the Trianon Trandon historian and research group at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences addressed the relationship between memory politics and historical science. He spoke – with much humor – about the existence of three types of history, that is, scientific historiography, which is practiced by academics in universities, scientific institutes, public collections, and is subject to certain rules, whether they are tacit or described. There is a public history that can be cultivated by historians, but by journalists, librarians, or even filmmakers, and the method of processing and promoting it.
And third, there is a very different policy of memory: government, politics and administration are the masters, and monuments, commemorative days, curricula, street names, and so on take the form of "measures."
Thus, according to Ablonczy, real history has nothing to do with politics, and even politics of memory is mixed with politics, that is, politics of history. Of course, this also has some kind of relationship with true history as science, but the method of memory politics is fixing, approximation and dissemination, which is not a means of finding and presenting facts. Of course, the categories are not permissive, but their perception varies by society and periodically.
It is important to know that history is a language, so the infrastructure and staff needed for true written history and research may depend on politics.
He also spoke of the fact that the period between World War II was characterized by personal personal rivalries and fundamental nepotist traits, although there was a continuous and cohesive opening, not a strong, united and cohesive historical community with clear professional expectations. Thus, the state could become powerful in history, for example, is enough to remind us that the ministers of the Historical Society were almost all throughout the age. Klebelsberg Kunó and Bálint Hóman also played a prominent role in public science policy, while Klebelsberg, for example, did not have a degree in history, but also aspired to the presidency of the Society, in addition to influencing scientific discourse.
According to Ablonczy, the era was clearly characterized by the fact that a conscious and systematic elite construction took place, the institutions of these were also built. In addition, state power had other means, such as the introduction of ethnography, as well as decisions in the field of educational policy and other policies of memory. At the same time, the state's place in memory politics may be much more appreciated by the fact that it has become a memorial ceremony for the Hungarian heroes (last Sunday of May); , here is the date of the eternal initiation of Batthyány (1926).
The presence of the state can be measured mainly in revolutionary cultures and monuments, but the transformation of public education is also significant.
"The historian said, recalling the transformation of Heroes' Square, or the introduction of the (Finno-Ugric) minority day in schools since 1930 – here Ablonczy was able to draw interesting proportions in the opposite direction of contemporary processes." I accept that this is a radically transformative memory policy that deepens society. he was able to influence other means, "said the historian, summarizing to this day indescribably similar tools of power.
Ablonczy summed up the situation between the two world wars which, although Hungarian history had become internal as a result of Trianon's influence and trained in the trianon trauma, he deliberately trained a team of well-trained and high quality professionals, often in dependence minister's staff or in a powerful university. . "This generation was beheaded after 1948, and its members were forced or forced to radically change their careers, or left alone. There are very few survivors here, basic cleansing in the history of Hungarian history, "he said, and the return of the university's" omnipotence "was only from the turn of the fifties to the sixties when they were able to return to the most talented new guards created by the socialist regime of state. Institute of History. "Many of the people created by the system do not know why they lost", that is, in this generation and along with them, Hungarian history lost about 15 years.
But can European football be pushed?
Indeed, only the questions and the historical debate that seems to be unfolding along the way have revived the sellers. The question of who, what personalities should or should be worth for Hungarian historians, recalled Attila Pók, the working groups of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences – even during the presidency of Pálinkás József – investigated this, the understandable dilemmas of society and common people. was looking for a scientific answer. How to make history approach people.
At the same time, however, Spider disagreed with Ablonczy about the fact that policy-based memory politics is not, or is not, real history, because it can tell the masses of history politically, its means reach a much larger medium and so the story you can show more about what happened.
We have to give up our need to know only the right path to history, to the past
Ablonczy said in reply that history is not the master of life, we do not know what to do – of course there is a cultural heritage, there are common, socially identical mental reactions that can be found in history. This may be the case with migrants in the peoples of Central Europe, who have memories of 4-5-6 years of "someone coming and wanting to buy what they have". These are, according to Ablonczy, a true cultural heritage, but the past is not a master, it will not respond to what needs to be done in the present or future. That is why he outlined a very different theory of history: in his story, in selecting the personalities of a historical biography, the goal is not to paint a saint or a demon, nor is judgment important.
However, if we look at what is missing in the biographies, we will say a lot about which historical figures are a great challenge. For example, there is no authentic biography about Miklós Horthy, although there are colleagues who are preparing for it, Ablonczy said, adding that there is no such scientifically credible writing about János Kádár. He reiterated that processing is not necessary to make a saint of someone who was not, but to explore history, knowing the pieces of the past is a basic need.
Attila Spider spoke of a rivalry in the region about who was the biggest victim. It was not heroism, but the sacrifice that was the object of competition, although one could be both a guilty and a victim at the same time. The historian pointed out the absence of the great biography of Kossuth and agreed that there was no Horthy and Kádár, only because the most decisive personalities were missing because they were the most difficult tasks for the science of history. And presumably, the most difficult of these figures is to paint an authentic and unbiased picture. The question of whether a historian could be impartial, according to Ablonczy, were two of the two wars with his own age, but there was one that could be.
Approximately one generation, 25-30 years, in order to be able to objectively examine a given period from the historical point of view
He said, but Spider saw it differently: worthless prejudice, no research without influence, he said. Either you have a dilemma of your own or a conflict with another person, and this has aroused interest in the subject of your research, but some kind of personal relationship or cause is of interest.
The profession takes away those who are very biased
Aranha said at the same time, and his example was not disturbed when Ablonczy added that he chose Teleki Pál not to know Latin well, and one of his teachers said that if he did not he would not deal with that time because without Latin knowledge, all other areas are just journalism. According to Spiders, it is very dangerous to measure historical scientific abilities in ideologies, for example, to measure the historical or political performance of national perception. Here, too, he recalled the debate over the humored statue of Homan, the more complex task in a statue building we would tell an academic committee to paint an absolute image of someone who is obviously not "monolithic." and, Ablonczy stated:
History can be considered a nationalist project
Even in modern history, and in Europe, history is the science that acts as a cohesive link in the taxpayer community. "We use nationalism with a negative signal, forgetting its performance, its driving force," he said, noting that, despite being a nationalist, the story is still very interested – people read, they argue about it:
chemical or chemical, such as covalent bonds, are not in the Sunday table.
The two historians agreed that the story is from the nineteenth century. It grew out of nation building in the 19th century, but the result of its state patriotism was that it was really a community. Although there are disadvantages to nationalism, and even historical monuments can prove their dangers, the story "still benefited," Ablonczy said. And here he also referred to the complexity of the historian's personality: he frequently changes in the course of his research (decades) as his subject stands. In connection with this, Spider finally spoke about the lack of a common European collective consciousness, the lack of common European history, which still makes history a means of strengthening national consciousness. Vitapartnere is the last. sticking to the right of the word, asked the question:
why, you can be European football?
Book cover: November 7, 1948 Mátyás Rákosi (b) Deputy Prime Minister and János Kádár (j) Minister of the Interior on the occasion of the October Great Socialist Revolution at the Opera. Photo of MTI / Gyula Bartos
Thank you for reading!
If it is important for you to keep an independent press, support the Index!