Review
[1] The authors of the Report On Slovak Sociology analysed in detail and responsively evaluated the genesis and a contemporary state of sociology. Presented facts and sources are in a matter-of-fact correct. Conclusions, outlined by the authors in particular chapters of the report, are the results of a critical view over reality of changes, which characterise a dynamics of sociology in the Slovakia in its inner structures. On the other hand, I consider some descriptions and partial conclusions of the authors as incomplete, and I assume as correct to complete, or, specify them - in a form of a supplement of selected paragraphs of the text.
[2] This chapter documents truthfully a relatively complicated development of the Slovak sociology since its protosociological forms until the era of a social turn in 1989. Hence I am going to concentrate myself on stressing those historical circumstances and context, which I consider as crucial for creation and shaping of paradigms of explanation and for character of the science in particular phases of its development.
[3] The decisive influence on the beginnings of sociological thinking in Slovakia had the institutionalisation of sociology in Bohemia. This fact had impact on the shaping of the research interests, but mainly on the approach to the research of social phenomena - this approach was based on the positivistic methodology in apprehension as it has been represented by the personality of Tomas G. Masaryk.
[4] In the inter-war period, sociology was taught only at the single Slovak university, in Bratislava, but applied sociology had been developing at the Geographical Institute of the Slovak Academy of Sciences and Arts, which was related to an interest in the sociology of village. It is noteworthy that the importance of sociology in the context of development of modern sciences was understood also by experts without sociological education, e.g. Igor Hrušovský, a Slovak philosopher and a representative of so-called Scientific Synthesis (on scientism oriented interdisciplinary scientific association).
[5] The stream of Christian sociology had been developing in its 2 confessional variants - the Catholic one and the Lutheran one, and it was precisely the Catholic variant which had been considerably branded by affiliation to nationalist ideology (Laiferová, 1998, 2001).
[6] The sociological school, founded by Anton Štefánek in 1940s, educated disciples of the tradition of the research of housing structures, until the present represented by works of Ján Pašiak and his colleagues (Pašiak, 1980, Falťan-Gajdoš-Pašiak, 1995 et al.).
[7] The Marxist sociology, represented by the group DAV was created and acted in Prague and its knowledge, gained by sociographical research, was above all an important political capital, which served the communist propaganda in Parliament and in contemporary press media.
[8] It is necessary to emphasise that certain authors used also an outlet to publish in Czech periodicals, mainly in the Sociological Revue (e.g. Anton Štefánek).
[9] The activity of the Slovak Cultural Society (Matica Slovenská) is wedded with the personality of Alexander Hirner, who since the mid-1940s belonged to the most productive authors in the Slovak sociology, and to the methodically as well as methodologically most erudite sociologists to realisation of empirical researches (Turčan, 2000). A reminiscence of his contribution to the development of Slovak sociology is the more important that in spite of a communist persecution and imprisonment in the 1950s he cohered to scientific work after a renewal of the Department of Sociology in Bratislava, and during 20 years of his pedagogical activity he took part in the education of dozens of up-to-date sociologists.
[10] The period after a communist takeover in 1948 constituted a stage of a deep discontinuity in the development of the Slovak sociology. The sociological section of the Slovak Cultural Society (Matica Slovenská) was abolished and occurred a Stalinization of the science, bounded with a monopoly of Marxist paradigm in social sciences (Pašiak and Macháček, 1994). In mentioned period, and later in connection with 1968 and incoming of Warsaw Treaty troops to Czechoslovakia, personal features of Andrej Sirácky, (a philosopher and later a sociologist and a politically influential member of the Communist Party in an ideological battle against so-called non-Marxist sociologists, who since the 1970s enforced sociology in a Marxist version at Slovak Academy of Sciences as well as at Comenius University), emerged controversially (Turčan-Laiferová, 1997).
[11] In spite of the process of normalisation, for the formation of the modern Slovak sociology had been of the special importance the contact with the Polish sociology since the mid-1960s, concerning to educational stations of Slovak sociologists in Poland, translations of literature (but only so-called non-Marxist), e.g. works by Jerzy Wiatr, Zygmunt Bauman, Jan Szczepański, Maria Hirszowicz etc.), expert scientific co-operation on collective researches and also a possibility to take an MA degree in sociology at Polish universities, which had been opened for Slovak scholars in the mid-1960 and lasted till a beginning of so-called normalisation in 1970 (Pašiak, 1997).
[12] A short period of a political “thaw“ at the edge of the 1960s allowed to publish translations of Western authors, which provided a source of knowledge and contact with the world of the western sociology for Slovak students of sociology for a long time. Mostly these were Czech translations of classical and contemporary authors as Ch. Wright Mills, Herbert Marcuse, Talcott Parsons, Auguste Comte etc. Russian translations, reporting on sociology in a non-communist world, were also available for sociologists and students of the discipline (e.g. by G. M. Andrejeva, G. V. Osipov, M. N. Rutkevič etc.)
[13] An international co-operation and presentation of the Slovak sociology was during a communist governance period the most intensive at the edge of the 1960s (participation at the World Sociological Congress in Evian in 1967, in Varna in 1970), later between the 1970s and 1980s just a narrow co-operation within a block of so-called socialist countries could develop - particular problems used to be formulated by the Communist Party as an order of the society. At academy ground of universities just minimal international mobility took place, mainly as exchanges with the former Soviet Union.
[14] On the other hand, between Departments of Sociology in Czech and Slovak part of the federation in those times originated a tradition of collective workshops, focusing above all on the issue of teaching sociology, where faculty members presented their expert reports.
[15] Articles on non-Marxist sociology, published on pages of the Slovak journal Sociológia in 1970s and 1980s, played sometimes a role of so-called “fig leaf”, by which an effort was hidden to give the reader at least a basic orientation about an author, or, a work of the Western provenance (e.g. articles and a monography by Dilbar Alijevová on contemporary American sociology, mentioned also by the authors of the report).
[16] As to the question of un-developed sociological dissent in Slovakia, which is emphasised by the authors, it was nothing extraordinary. Generally, oppositional activities were not very developed in the Slovak society, what was linked above all to consequences of the negative modernisation, which had brought Slovakia after the 1948 a long-term industrialisation growth and hence also a social increase of particular social strata, but at the same time it did not constitute a parallel development of democratic moral and cultural values and patterns, which followed a modernisation process in its West-European and American variant. Unlike situation in Bohemia, it was rather reliable obstruction of any social disagreement of also educated strata of citizens who did not feel a pressure and consequences of the normalisation regime as intensive as in, above mentioned, Czech part of the Federation and mainly in Prague. An exception was perhaps only a Catholic dissent (out of the frame of sociology), however, it activated more manifestly in the 1980s.
[17] An important milestone in life of a sociological community in Slovakia was on the edge of the 1980s, by the authors mentioned, 2nd Congress of Slovak Sociologists in Martin (September 1989), which in fact rehabilitated sociologists who until then had been politically persecuted (e.g. Ján Pašiak). Free elections were held and a new management of the Slovak Sociological Association was established, despite of the presence of representatives of high authorities of the Communist Party. This event had happened less than 2 months before the “velvet revolution” struck in the former Czechoslovakia. At the same time, it was the first public and spontaneous appearance of a wider sociological community in Slovakia in the era of normalisation.
[18] Adequately to the importance of the topic, the authors pay pointed attention to a redefinition of the discipline after the1990, what incorporated and still incorporates the deepest change in the development of sociology in Slovakia since the times of its institutionalisation in the beginning of the 20-th century and repeated rehabilitation and the renewal in the 1960s. It had impacted its theoretical basis, methodological explanations, thematic orientation and international co-operation as well as forms of professionalization of the science, its public activity and last but not least a linkage with a political climate in the society. A change of paradigms and elites as well as lack of continuity with the Marxist sociology before the 1989, what the authors state in their report, are in my opinion related to the way in which the process of de-communisation of sociology in Slovakia goes on (eventually does not go on). A discussion on the problem of de-communisation, which has specific features in social sciences, is held in most post-communist countries with various frequency. In the former Czechoslovakia, majority of sociologists at universities and in the academic milieu after 1968 - in the period of so-called normalisation - belonged to the former Communist Party (KSČ). However, a uniformity of opinions was not a feature of an internal milieu of sociologists-communists, and this fact was transparently manifested during the 1980s, in the phase of so-called perestroika, initiated by Mikhail Gorbachev in the former Soviet Union. In the stage after the change of the political governance in the end of 1989, the process of huge institutional and personal re-composition had started in the Czechoslovakia, which had an impact on all spheres of political and spiritual life of the society, and also to the field of social sciences. Politically nominated representatives of institutions were in Slovakia in the first phase of changes replaced by highly respected personalities from the sociological community, who were elected, or - later - chosen after a tender procedure. Sociologists, like a lot of other professions, started to function in spheres, which had no legitimate structures under the former governance, as business, enterprise or trade - as, for example, public opinion research centres, advertising agencies, etc. As a result of economic transformation, mainly in sphere of enterprises, some sociologists had to leave existing positions due to the reduction of jobs and had to search for an occupation in other spheres, often out of sociology. Part of sociologists stayed in an academic milieu of universities and in the Slovak Academy of Sciences, which also importantly changed concerning the autonomy of functioning, democratisation and liberalisation in their internal environment. The political development in Slovakia during the 1990s, however, led for a certain time to a political isolation of the country from the main stream of social changes in the context of access processes of the Mid- and East-European countries to the NATO and EU. The sociological community has politically diversified, what resulted in a constraint of internal communication and discussion, to mutual alienation and to the lack of respect to positions of a partner with a different political orientation. This was one of the reasons, why in the Slovak sociology of the last decade in fact has not been raised a problem of its de-communisation, for it was in the meantime “covered” by a political problem: assertion of authoritative governance. It led in the field of science again to the fight for the rescue of the autonomy of science, freedom of academic institutions and the defence of the basic values of the “velvet” revolution 1989. A borderline hence did not stay and till nowadays does not stay between former members and non-members of the former Communist Party, but it reflects an overall polarisation of the Slovak society in its transformational, eventually anti-transformational orientation. Many former members of the Communist Party, save former high party officials who managed academic institutions till 1989, stayed active participants of the sociological environment also after 1989. Any “reserve” set of sociologists - a sociological dissent - who could undertake positions instead of till then members of the Communist Party (which existed e.g. in Bohemia), did not exist in Slovakia. Slovak sociology was weak in its personnel dimension. It was a consequence of the total 40 years long development of the science after the communist take-over in 1948, and its regular decimation by purges of the Communist Party in the era of so-called normalisation. At the beginning of the 1990s, some members of the sociological community who were members of the Communist Party, lost their jobs after the abolishment of various institutions (research, ideological etc.) and applied for jobs in the sociological profession. The sociological community manifested the solidarity by giving them a chance to begin anew in their previous profession. This can explain the existence of the generation gap, which is pointed out by the authors.
[19] The de-communisation, comprehended as purposely directed activity oriented to eliminate the functioning, or, exclusion from the professional environment of the former members of the Communist Party, did not happen in Slovakia. Many of the former members more or less successfully act in different professional spheres, in the private sector, state department institutions, at universities or in the Slovak Academy of Sciences. One can anticipate the discussion on this issue will occur with an entry of a new generation of sociologists, who - maybe - will formulate the problems using a different optics than the one, which has been used up to the present time.
[20] From the aspect of its content, one cannot object the paragraph dealing with the characteristics of the process of the change of elites, however, it is necessary to specify the description of the course of this process at the department of Sociology in Bratislava. As the authors wrote, also this Department eliminated a personal continuity. The head of the Department, Marcel Sloboda, was in 1989 - after the “velvet” revolution - replaced by Juraj Schenk, who was elected by his colleagues and confirmed in 2 tenures.
[21] The authors in this chapter mention critically activities of sociologists concerned with publication during the 1990s, what, basically, is a matter-of-fact, however, the information is necessary to supply with publications which have been issued in not-Western periodicals and volumes, in ISI uncovered sources or other, by the authors not mentioned sources. (e.g. Alijevová, 1995, Alijevová, 1997, Bunčák, 1998, Džambazovič, 1997, 2000, Laiferová and Lubelcová,1999, Bunčák and Laiferová, 1998, Laiferová 1995, Laiferová 1998, Laiferová 1999, Laiferová 2000, Schenk, 1996, Sopóci, 1994, Tížik, 2000).
[22] The authors also tackle the problem of funding of new institutional structures in the spheres of science and university education. Financial conditions are in these spheres, in general, unattractive. Despite of this fact, one has to say that at the original Department of Sociology, Comenius University, Bratislava, the team has been markedly rejuvenated during the last decade - in comparison to the beginning of the 1990s. But, the most of new institutional structures in Slovakia fight against the factor of the high age of employees.
[23] This chapter gave the authors an opportunity to de-mask and verbalise contemporary internal problems of the Slovak sociology, critically evaluate its pros and cons and discuss its shortcomings. I must quite agree with the characterisation of new East-West Asymmetries in sociology, which has been lasting since the beginnings of the 1990s. At least limited funds to support research activities offer, for example, projects of bilateral co-operation. This way have chosen e.g. at the Department of Sociology in Bratislava, where on the basis of the support from the Austrian Institute for South and Southeast Europe a joint project was initiated together with Austrian colleagues from university bodies. Present asymmetries perhaps will be continuously overcome by participation to international research teams in within treating tasks of the 5-th framework programme of the EU.
[24] The paragraphs, where the approaches to sociological research are treated, one can find references mainly on qualitative research in Slovakia. It has markedly increased since the 1990s, really. But one has to note that unambiguously the greatest proportion belongs, naturally, to the quantitative research, which - with regard to its long-time tradition - is represented in almost all sociological sub-disciplines (public opinion researches, researches of youth, local communities and urbanism, health care, education, criminology etc.).
[25] The authors captured the leading thematic orientation of the Slovak sociology, which concentrates above all on the question of transformation and transition. I would associate myself with a reproof that in the scale of contemporary topics, solutions of problems from the sphere of sociology of law are missing to reflect actual social problems, correlating with the variability of legal environment. It is related partly to undevelopment of this sub-discipline in Slovakia in general. On the other hand, one can consider as a certain promise that a candidate, who graduated both in law and in sociology, prepares for this discipline at present in an internal post-graduate programme at the Department of Sociology, CU, in Bratislava.
[26] Funding of science and research is, in general, starveling in Slovakia. This phenomenon is a continuation of a certain "tradition" from the era of so-called “normalisation” after 1968 and a socialistic egalitarianism, but does not establish a good reputation of the country which efforts to approximate its conditions to those of EU countries. Private resources of funding are rather limited and there is almost any sponsoring in this sphere.
[27] The lack of debate and critical discussion in the Slovak sociologist community is a prevailing phenomenon, deeper roots of which one can search perhaps in a certain conform mentality, educational and pedagogical stereotypes, but also in a former social experience, or, inexperience with an open discussion, an objective acceptation of a critique. Anyway, this problem is deeper and more complex, to a certain degree depending on some self-orientation of sociologists and perhaps their excessive respect to auctorial notions of their colleagues.
[28] The authors gave an appropriate space to the questions of the further development of science, research programmes and forms of international co-operation. In this relation, the problem of brain-drain abroad is extra sensitive - it is a phenomenon prospectively destructively influencing the shape of educational and qualification structure of population of Slovakia. This problem has transparent socio-economic relations, which is not necessary to analyse and specify here and now. Actually, it is supposed (a strict record in this domain does not exist) that since the beginning of the 1990s a continuous increase of the rate of turnout of young and in prevailing majority also graduated people from the city environment to countries, offering incomparably better conditions for their professional realisation. For Slovakia, it is a real danger of a historically new emigration wave which notably weakens its human potential with all social economical and cultural consequences, which such a process brings.
Bratislava, 2002
