Review
[1] Giving an account of the state of affairs of a discipline implies a conceptual presupposition that assigns the scope of cognitive interest. If it matters an overall account of a science in a country one has to align not only the geographical borderlines of the country in question but those of the discipline as well. Much as one is aware of the difficulty of defining the concept of any science (it is, of course, a crucial and much debated theme of themselves) included that of sociology that has been stretching as a massive thread in the history of our discipline from the very beginning all along the last century up to nowadays one has - we think - to have a provisional work-concept of sociology. This pre-concept can be made up deliberately or unintentionally. Notwithstanding, it can not be avoided. This presupposition that is tacitly professed in several cases (similarly to those enumerated by Jeffrey Alexander in his book on the history of American sociology, see J. Alexander, 1987: 9-16) predetermines the span of the “space” into which one will locate the books, essays, papers etc. “suspect” of belonging to the science of sociology. Otherwise, it is impossible to overcome the mistake of integrating in the objects of investigation the works that, upon deeper scrutiny, would not belong to them, or else, there will be works not taken up although they would have ranged into the domain of sociology if its presupposed concept would not have beforehand been determined too narrowly.
[2] First of all, I want to pay obeisance to the rapporteurs for they have done a good work. Glancing at the report of Némedi and Róbert it seemed to me that the picture of Hungarian sociology they presented us with is more than less true. All major problems are raised, topics dealt, trends outlined, subject-matters concerned which have been present in our discipline almost without any exception. I hardly have any objection to what they displayed, yet I have some to be mentioned to what they did not. I am not saying the remarks customary in criticism of such kind of accounts, namely, e.g. it failed to mention this or that author, or trend, or it could have laid more stress upon this or that topic, etc. It is taken for granted that any kind of account, overview of a, say, discipline is always a matter of selection, and anybody is able to usher new lines of thought, ideas, aspects which would have deserved to be integrated into the subject-matter. Hegel called somewhere this kind of anti-dialectical way of arguing “as well additions”. “Das ist etwas aber etwas anderes auch” (It is something but it is something else as well). For issues are inexhaustible as much in sociology as in any other discipline as well. My objection is not of this kind at all. It is directed into the heart of our discipline: a decade ago or so I organized a workshop in the Historical and Theoretical Section of the Hungarian Association of Sociology about history of Hungarian sociology. One of the rapporteurs, Dénes Némedi, took part in this workshop. It seemed to me that he and others, perhaps the overwhelming majority of sociologists in Hungary, were bent to consider the science of sociology as the one which uses as hypothesis some partial or middle-range theory which is directly tested on empirical data and analysed in a way based on sophisticated mathematical-statistical operations, and, finally, it was carried out by sociologists who work in a department or research institute of sociology. It infers from this position that the history itself of sociology as a whole did not belong to the “corpus” of the sociology itself. I can not tell how much I do counter to this concept of sociology Since the rapporteurs tacitly admit this I believe too narrow a concept in the report, it led them to contract the marginal lines of the sphere of the sociology as science, and, accordingly, they were passing by works, and topics which, I believe, must not be left out from the history of Hungarian sociology, not only in the last decade, but from the history of the Hungarian sociology as a whole. I repeat: I don’t think that to the “corpus” of the sociology only those works belong which were carried out by professed sociologists as members of any sociological research institute or of a university department called “of sociology”. This institutional conception of sociology is the one from which I dissent.
[3] Following the conception of sociology as represented by Raimond Aron in his “Les étapes de la pensée sociologique” I believe all works to be subsumed under the “umbrella” of sociology that intend to study “ du social en tant que tel”(that is - in English - perhaps - “societal as such”) “soit au niveau élémentaires des relations interpersonelles soit au nivau macroscopique des vastes ensembles, classes, nations civilisations ou…société globales”(R. Aron, 1967: 16). If one accepts this definition of sociology new vistas will open the ones which indiscriminately incorporate all studies of social reality, be they “theoretical or “empirical”, provided that they can be tested, or else, logically or empirically verified. Of course, it can be objected to this position that by accepting this concept of sociology the dividing line between sociology and other social sciences, particularly history and social philosophy, would be blurred. Yet, I maintain this position will gain more benefits than losses if one meticulously severs sociology from other social sciences mentioned. I remind for instance poets and novelists who gave much impetus to the professional literary criticism (e.g. Schiller), and also - even in Hungary - how strongly philosophers (think of e.g. Bence’s, Kiss’ and Markus’ book: Is the political economy possible at all?, or the very thoughtful essays of Mihály Vajda about the transition), economists (like Kornai), and historians (like Hanák and Szűcs Jenő) contributed to the very knowledge of our society.
[4] By having assimilated this conception of sociology I am adhering to the current that was inaugurated by Jeffrey Alexander, and called not anti- but post-positivist paradigm of sociology the epistemological basis of which he had led back to the theory of knowledge of Rom Harré and Michael Polanyi. I do not want to bother you with my digressing on their views and that’s why I think, suffice it to quote a sentence from a book by an American author that I came across a few days ago since it throws more light on both the conception and its enduring tradition of the history of sociology to which I am affiliated myself. The author, George E. McCarty deals with the history of German social thought from Weber to Habermas, and puts it as follows:
[5] “Their writings on epistemology, philosophy of science and sociological methods are derived from self-critical reflections on their own empirical researches and social theory. For them, philosophy emerges naturally from sociology and is organically and internally related to the application of scientific inquiry. Philosophy of social science is not an isolated sub-discipline of an other profession but critical reflection on the foundation of sociology itself” (G.E. McCarty, 2001).
[6] The outcomes of this position are as follows:
[7] Again, the historical overview that the rapporteurs presented with us is well carried out. Of course, as a historian of Hungarian sociology, I am missing a more detailed design of history of sociology in Hungary but I understand that the main point having been the portraying of the last ten years the space for historical account must have been restricted. I would discriminate only two traits of the history that bears to a comprehensive extent upon the present situation.
[8] A the very beginning of the Hungarian sociology, in the nineteenth and at the turn of the twentieth century the first sociologist or positivists wrote and published some of their books in foreign languages which were reviewed in eminent (today we would say: refereed) periodicals or discussed on their value. Some example: J. Eötvös’ (“forerunner” of the Hungarian sociology) “The influence of ruling ideas upon the State” (Munich,1851, in German) was compared by a French social scientist, Laboulay with J.S. Mill’s “On liberty” and Humbolt’s book on this issue, A. Pulszky’s (founding father of Hungarian sociology) “Introduction to the Theory of Law and Civil Society (London, 1886) was construed in Westminster Law Review and Law Quarterly, Felix Somlo’s Juristische Grundlehre (conceived in the vein of Simmel’s formal sociology) (Leipzig,1917) was discussed by Hans Kelsen, and finally B. Horváth’s (who made the first public opinion research in Hungary in 1931) “Rechtssoziologie” (Berlin, 1935) was given welcome and discussed by several authors in the international scientific community (and republished in 1971). Summing up: the international road-network was not of a one-way type.
[9] By contrast, as Kim Lane Scheppele describes present situation as follows: “translation had gone for the most part only one way. Books from the West are available in translation in the East while books from the East are rarely translated and published in the West” (Replika op. cit.: 100).
[10] The reason for this ignorance of Westerners is, at least partly, what Pál Tamás worded on an other occasion (Deutscher Soziologentag in Frankfurt, 1990) as that ”the lack of original theories” (“Zu einer Soziologie des Postkommunismus: Kritik, Theorie, Methodologie”, Hrsg.: Bálint Balla, Wolfgang Geier, Münster, Hamburg, 1994). Unlike his argumentation I think it was due to the fact that under the Socialist area as Kálman Kulcsár, former director of the Institute of Sociology) claimed, granted that the overall theoretical framework was given by the historical Materialism, the only thing that is incumbent upon the Marxist sociology was to forge middle-range theories fitting into that Marxist framework. The consequence of it was devastating one: withering out of theoretical originality. For a genuine theory is a sensible plant, it can come to fruition. only if watered by the freedom of thought.
[11] Another historical characteristic feature of Hungarian sociology that had stretched from the very beginning of the twentieth century to the end of the Communist area was the non-academic institutionalization. The first sociological association - as rightly indicated in the Report - was founded in 1901 under the influence of H. Spencer. However, from the first years of the Marxist impact on the most active faction of the Society could be felt increasing due to the entrance of Ervin Szabó, the outstanding Marxist theorist, in the editorial board of the Society’s monthly (Huszadik Század=Twentieth Century) who considered Historical Materialism as the truly scientific sociology. Henceforth the Marxist vocabulary and tenets ( classes and class struggle as applied first in the transcription of the history of Hungary) were commonly used in the analysis of social problems. Since that time Hungarian sociology became a “damned science” in Hungary, and it kept being such up till the change of sytem under various regimes. As a consequence, sociology challenged the academic world and the Conservative- National public by heavily attacking the institutions of the traditional constitutional and political order cherished by the national fierce. The critical tradition went on between the two world wars since many sociologists took part in the revolution of October 1918, and this revolution was blamed to be instrumental in letting the Communists take over the power and bring about the first Communist totalitarian area declared “Republic of Councils” on the line of Russian Bolshevik Soviet System (March, 1919). After the collapse of the Communist government (August, 1919) the new regime called itself both “counterrevolutionary and Christian-National” one. Sociologists and even sociology as such became liable for the Trianon Treaty and dismemberment of the “historical Hungary”(1920). During the interwar period only some branches of sociology, e.g. sociology of music (A. Molnár, 1922), sociology of history (I. Hajnal), sociology of law (B. Horváth), sociology of public administration (Z. Magyary) could be “officially” endorsed and taught in some universities. The first sociology department was founded (as Department of Social Science headed by István Dékány) only in 1943 to the Faculty of Humanities Pázmány Péter University (now: Eötvös Lorand University) in Budapest.
[12] Yet, just in the thirties a movement started and came into fruition (the name of which can not be properly translated in English without misunderstandings since it was called folks- or populist movement) that was inspired by the Russian “narodniki”. The latter was (to use the Weberian term, see it in Weber’s posthumous book: Wirtschaftsgeschichte) Agrarian Communist by birth in ideology (see to this Venturi’s famous book on the Russian Narodniki) of the nineteen century. After having landed in Hungary it riveted an “attenuated form” seeking mostly a land reform. However, the movement was in the same time not only political but both literary and scientific and with ideologies ranging from a romantic “back to the uncorrupted people” worldview up to Communism (and - contrary to the assumption of the rapporteurs - anti-Semitism was assumed by the few)in ideology. Young intellectuals of the movements wanted to uncover the real state of countryside and for that reason they embarked upon mapping the villages. That was the “village researching movement” prompted by O. Jászi (who was inspired by Durkheim whom he met in Paris in 1905) and Robert Braun who made the first village research (called upon by I. Thomas, American Sociologist who published later the book “The Polish Peasant in Poland and in America” coauthored by Znaniecki), and influenced later by a Romanian, Dimitriu Gusti’s). From the research findings they launched a book series called “Discovery of Hungary”(and beside the series a few others) that presented the public with miseries and poverty of the population of the countryside the middle class had no idea about as yet, and by doing this triggered a serious crises of conscience among intellectuals. Never again did sociological books provoke such a public. The political elite reacted in both ways: integration (e.g. application of young sociologists as “social political secretaries” in the the county administration) and persecution (criminal case proceedings). Summing up: between the two wars sociology remained an “oppositional” science in Hungary.
[13] The best book of this movement was published by one of the rapporteurs, D. Némedi: A népi szociográfia 1930-1938. Budapest 1985. Just for this reason the fact that the Report does not deal according to its merit with this massive part of the tradition of the Hungarian sociology can not understood for the book series “Discovery of Hungary” was launched again in the sixties and issued more than 30 volumes. Anybody who wants to have a comprehensive overview of what happened in Hungary from the sixties to the change of the system cannot omit going through at least several of them.
[14] As to the situation after the war I want to make two remarks. One of them is a rather an interesting supplement to the story. In 1945 Karl Manheim, chair of the Department of Sociology and Pedagogy at the London School of Economics at that time, was invited home to take over the heading of the Department of Social Science but he urbanely refused it.
[15] Second remark: due to the fact that the sociology in the first period of State Socialism was banned as “bourgeois pseudo-science” it kept the “oppositional” character even in the sixties (when it was permitted to reorganize as a research group within the Institute of Philosophy of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences) and seventies. In the second half of latter years the underground opposition (launched a Manifesto, signed by 34 leading intellectuals, for the members of the “Charter ‘77” in prison in Prague) was formed. By now Hungarian sociologists divided in two “camps”. One them gathered those who joined the underground opposition and the other (let’s name them “reformists”) who did not. The former camp denied the possibility of improvement of the “real existing socialism”, the latter did not give it up. Between the two factions there was not a “Chinese wall”. A great number of “reformist” sociologists e.g. wrote articles in the samizdat periodicals (under pen-name). Leaders of sociology institutes and university departments tried to give asylum to those suspect of belonging to the opposition , or even being about to be persecuted by the police. The fact that there was no purification and revenge in the universities and other institutions after the collapse of the system owes to the largest extent this tolerant mood.
[16] The report says that “Debates in Hungarian sociology do not have a long tradition”. I think this was more characteristic of the situation before the changes, 1989 than after. Since just in 1990 a new periodical was launched by younger generation of sociologists entitled Replika. That made the breakthrough by having brought about a new area in the history of Hungarian sociology with respect to the discussions and disputes. The editorial board organized debates e.g. in the way that a critical essay was sent to the criticised author in advance and the next issue published together both the essay and the answer to it by the author. It happened several times that the periodical opened its pages for further contributions to the ongoing debated themes. Such and similar kind of discussion embraced the most crucial social problems and theoretical or methodological issues. Just to give some examples: theoretical and methodological problems of researches on social structure and stratification (no.1), chances of sociology in our region (special issue in English, 1996), “History of sociology: what for? (23-24)”, colonization or partnership? Eastern and Western social sciences”, Roma problems, sociology of football, gender issues and feminism, and so forth. Further to this, the periodical has not confined itself to the academic sociology in terms of Némedi and Róbert, but was eager to pay tribute to such philosophers as Feyerabend, Imre Lakatos and Thomas Kuhn, proving that the philosophical tradition in our discipline was still alive. At the same time Replika widened the genre-limits as well, communicating e.g. interviews with “common people” which were made in “transcript” of a member of the editorial board (M. Hadas), and also interview with sociologists on the present situation of sociology that sometimes and in some cases amounted to the level of a scientific paper.
[17] Summing up, the Replika has become one of the most interesting periodical in the last ten years and must not have been omitted from the recent history of Hungarian sociology.
Pécs, 2002
