After meandering around peripheral issues (such as the meaning of
"explanation", whether history is a science or not, and if so, what kind)
Andras Kornai returns to the crux of the question:
> I again challenge the professional historians and history-buffs on
> HUNGARY to come up with a single reason why we should look at things
> prior to 1975 to help us determine how Hungary should act vis a vis
> Romania and Slovakia.
This is a very narrow way of phrasing the question, but it is worth an
answer nevertheless. "Looking at things prior to 1975" means many
things. It means looking at events, the various interpretations of
events, received ideas, and their source: the history books from which
generations of schoolkids were taught. It means taking each collective
obsession (on either side) and tracing it back to its origins. The point
is to create trust where nothing but distrust exists now. To create trust,
it is necessary to learn how to avoid each other's neuralgic points. To
avoid them, you must know where they are. The neuralgic points all have
to do with history, the way it is taught and the way it is thought about.
The world is full of ethnic conflict and commercial squabbles, but the
conflicts in Eastern Europe have a special flavor to them: they all revolve
around history. This is because the East European breed of nationalism
-- along with most East European nations themselves -- is the invention of
19th century provincial schoolmasters. [The process whereby this came
about is described in a brilliant short chapter called The Course of True
Nationalism Never Did Run Smooth, by E. Gellner, in his Nations and
Nationalism. Everything you ever need to know about the topic is right
there, and it takes only 5 pages.]
Andras presented his modified Ford thesis out of frustration with the
historical "debate" on the late lamented Seton-Watson the Elder. We
all remember how that went: "He is not an objective source." -- "Yes he
is." -- "No, he's not." -- "Yes he is." No matter how pointless, this
style of argumentation is still useful as a diagnostic tool. The
arguments are leading nowhere, because the participants look at the same
landscape and perceive completely different "facts". How do you deal
with this kind of pathology? The solution implicitely proposed by
Andras is to stop talking about history, period.
When one is faced with a person suffering from agoraphobia, it is
useless to try to persuade them that their fears are irrational. It is
far better to try to understand what past experiences caused them to
have those fears and suspicions, to accept why those fears were an
appropriate response to the situation *then*, and to gently persuade
them that it is safe to let go of those fears *now*. The purpose is
not to debunk or nullify someone's version of history; it is to enable
them to function in spite of that history. For the technique to work,
one must be able to trace the phobias back to whatever trauma
originally triggered them. This approach is essentially historical.
To be more explicit, if someone (one of Funar's followers, let's say) has
come to fear hordes of evil, devious Hungarians bent on her destruction,
then it is useless to try to tell her these fears are irrational, or that
they are based on events that never happened. It might be better to
acknowledge the fears, try to understand how these fears came to be, and
gently persuade her that it is safe to let go of them now. To do that,
I must be aware that what I was told was a heroic struggle in 1848 to
fight for freedom against the Austrian oppressor was described in *her*
history classes rather differently: she was told it was a punitive
expedition by Hungarian oppressors against defenseless Wallachs.
In a way, we were both taught crap, and it almost does not matter which
version has the larger grain of truth. From the standpoint of the narrow
operational question posed by Andras, what matters is for both of us to
understand where the fear and distrust come from. This is very far from
any strict scientific notion of "understanding", but it is a step forward.
-----
Gabor Fencsik
|
Gabor's essay elegantly expresses the argument that I also hold on the
usefulness of studying history. I guess in a way you could say that
history may not tell you what you should do, but could suggest things
_not_ to do, or warn against certain ways of attempting to reach your
goals. I recently attended in Levoca, Slovakia, a seminar on teaching nation-
alism (where Gellner's name was often mentioned) at which a graduate
assistant from the Central European University talked about his experiences.
(He was, btw, a Hungarian originally from Transylvania but now resident
in Hungary). Whatever opinion one may hold on the travails of the CEU,
the idea that students from _all_ the regional countries would study
_together_ the phenomenon of nationalism (using, of course, today's
major imperial, and therefore "neutral", language, English) surely is
a practical way of implementing that avoidance of each other's neuralgic
points that Gabor mentions.
Sincerely,
Hugh Agnew
|
Eddig minden kulonosebb problema nelkul hasznaltam magyar
karaktereket DOS-alkalmazasokban a DOS-codpage 852 es
a magyar billentyuzetmeghajto kivalasztasaval (autoexec.bat es
config.sys).
Windows alkalmazasokkal mar bonyolultabb a helyzet, mert a
(nemetorszagban es valoszinuleg mas orszagokban is) hasznalatos
Windows nem tamogatja a magyar billentyuzetet es karaktertablat.
Ezert a szamitogepemen a magyarorszagon kaphato Windows-t is
installaltam a nemet melle, es innen inditom a szokasos
szovegszerkesztomet. Igy mukodnek a magyar betuk es a billentyuzet
is magyar, bar nemet feliratokkal. A magyar betuket filctollal
irtam ra a billenty=FCkre. Ez a legolcsobb megoldas. Ha fontos
a helyesirasellenorzes, a Word for Windows kaphato (Magyarorszagon)
magyar szotarral is.
Papp Gellert
|
