The article approaches the transformation of mobile elite’s
political imagination, linking the emergence of a federative ideology to the impossibility of accommodating minorities. While referring to the case of the Hungarian revolutionary emigration in the middle of the 19th century as an example, the paper examines the categories of “inclusion in” or “exclusion from” a “core-group” as elements determined by the shared imperial legacies and a “minority” status of the public actors. Addressing Harris Mylonas’s scheme of accommodation of minorities within nation-states and combining
it with the concept of “Imperial biographies”, the paper claims that the projects for a Danubian confederation were the results of an inability to address non-homogeneity by a none-core group on a quest for building a nation-state. Driven into exile, Hungarian intellectuals preferred to opt for the incorporation of the other
none-core groups of the Habsburg Empire and their neighbors into a possible confederation that could allow not only to satisfy their aspirations for a national emancipation, but to turn “minorities”
into “majorities”. and Článek zahrnuje poznámkový aparát pod čarou
Interwar Romania was infamous for its many violent political and
social scenes. Some of these scenes represented exclusionary violence in its basic form, such as riots against Jews (and sometimes against other minorities) in 1922 and most prominently in 1927. But many other forms of violence were customary in Greater Romania. Clashes between villagers, destruction of memorials and statues, armed violence against the opposition electorate,beating up of politicians and occasional revolts against the authorities concerned an ever-growing state security apparatus that was rarely able to control these eruptions. Their persistence makes them suspicious of being a systemic phenomenon. In this article I argue that violence in this widespread form was a structural characteristic of Greater Romania, the result of systemic factors in
the new state. A loosening of moral constraint due to the preceding first world war, subsequent revolutions (and paramilitary endeavours) and the deficiencies of the state together had a decisive impact on the formation of a political culture that fostered violence from time to time. These factors on the one hand legitimized violence as a form of political action and, on the other hand, they resulted from and impeded successful nation building, and the realizationof the state’s promises for the nation. Thus, interwar Romania became a failing nation state and as such it facilitated popular forms of violence that was widely felt being justified by the legitimacy enjoyed by the ideology of the
nation-state. and Obsahuje poznámkový aparát pod čarou
The article attempts to define five phases in Hroch's studies on national movements since the 1960s till today as well as the dominant empirical, interpretational and methodical features of his contributions - as they are the internationally reflected. However, in some cases (the "phases A - B - C" of the national movement), this reflection is connected with decontextualization or misunderstandings of Hroch's concepts interpretations (e.g. the above mentioned phases A - B - C were not a result, but an introductory methodical tool of Hroch's comparative study, and they are often interpreted only "by touch"), but that changes nothing on their inspiring impact. On this background, the article poses the question of "productive desinterpretations" of concepts, which are in the historography (or generally cultural and social science) perhaps not an extraordinary phenomenon, and Článek zahrnuje poznámkový aparát pod čarou