National Ideology under Socialism Identity and Cultural Politics in Ceausescu's Romania

Katherine Verdery

University of California Press Berkeley and Los Angeles, California University of California Press, Ltd. London, England Copyright 1991 by he !egents of the University of California "irst Paperba#k Printing 199$ Library of Congress Cataloging%in%P&bli#ation 'ata (erdery, )atherine. *ational ideology &nder so#ialis+ , identity and #&lt&ral politi#s in C#a&ses#&-s !o+ania . )atherine (erdery. p. #+. / 01o#ieties and #&lt&re in East%Central E&rope2 3n#l&des bibliographi#al referen#es and inde4. 31B* 5%$65%657$8%$ 1. !o+ania/C&lt&ral poli#y. 6. !o+ania/Politi#s and govern+ent/1999 /1989. 7. 3ntelle#t&als/!o+ania. 9. Cea&ses#&, *i#olae. 3. itle. 33. 1eries. '!6:;.(9; 1991 75:-.59998/d#65 95%9;;6; C3P Printed in the United 1tates of A+eri#a 1679$:;89 he paper &sed in this p&bli#ation +eets the +ini+&+ re<&ire+ents of A+eri#an *ational 1tandard for 3nfor+ation 1#ien#es/Per+anen#e of Paper for Printed Library =aterials, A*13 >79.98%1989. ? L&i 'avid Prodan y t&t&ror #el&rlalfi #are, i+pre&na #& el, a& sp&s @*&A@ #hiar #& pref&l viefti. o 'avid Prodan And to all those Bho, like hi+, 1aid @*oA@/so+e even Bith their lives.

Whoever would take the measure of intellectual life in the countries of Central or Eastern Europe from the monotonous articles appearing in the press or the stereotyped speeches pronounced there, would be making a grave error. Just as theologians in periods of strict orthodoxy expressed their views in the rigorous language of the Church, so the writers of the people's democracies make use of an accepted style, terminology, and linguistic ritual. What is important is not what someone said but what he wanted to say, disguising his thought by removing a comma, inserting an and, establishing this rather than another se!uence in the problems discussed. "nless one has lived there one cannot know how many titanic battles are being fought# $C%estaw &ilos%'

U*3(E!13 C D" CAL3"D!*3A P!E11 Berkeley, Los Angeles, London 1991

Contents P!E"ACE 4i AC)*DELE'F=E* 1 G( 3ntrod&#tion, 3deology, C&lt&ral 3ntelle#t&als 1 Con#epts and er+s ; 3deology, Legiti+a#y, Hege+ony 8 he Politi#s of C&lt&re 16 3ntelle#t&als 1$ =ethods 19 DrganiIation of the Book 65

Politi#s,

PA! D*E, "!A=EED!)1 1 Ante#edents, *ational 3deology and C&lt&ral Politi#s in Preso#ialist !o+ania 6; 1eventeenth thro&gh *ineteenth Cent&ries 75 HoB !o+anian 3dentity Eas !epresented, he J&estion of Drigins 71 1tate "or+ation and Eesternis+ 79 !o+anti#is+, 'a#ianis+, and the @*ational Essen#e@ 7: !e#apit&lation 95 1955 to Eorld Ear 33 91 'efining the *ation BetBeen East and Eest 9: he 1o#ial Effi#a#y of 'ebates on the *ation $9 3ntelle#t&als 'efend die *ation and $$ Constr&#t he+selves 3ntelle#t&als and the 'is#iplines :7 6 =odeling 1o#ialis+ and 1o#ialist C&lt&ral Politi#s ;6 he 'yna+i#s of @!eal 1o#ialis+@ ;9 =a4i+iIation Prin#iples and B&rea&#rati# ;9 Allo#ation Eeak 1tates and the =ode of Control 87 1o#ialis+ and C&lt&ral Prod&#tion 8; 7 he 1&ppression and !eassertion of *ational (al&es in 1o#ialist !o+ania 98 Feneral 'evelop+ents in !o+anian Politi#s after 199; 156 "ro+ =inion to =averi#k, he !o+anian Party 'raBs ABay fro+ 1oviet 'o+ination 157 Eli+inating !efor+is+ 15: !egi+e !elations Bith 3ntelle#t&als 158 he !eassertion of *ational 3deology in !o+anian C&lt&re and Politi#s 11: Ehy *ational 3deologyK 161 PA! ED, CA1E1 9 he =eans of Confli#t, @Elitis+,@ @'og+atis+,@ and 3ndigeniIations of =ar4is+ 17; "oreign 3+ports, @Universality,@ and !epresentativeness 195 @Elitis+@ and CogniIant P&bli#s 196 @"as#ists,@ @'og+atists,@ and @Prolet#&ltists@ 19$ Fenealogi#al Appropriations, E+ines#& as Proto% =ar4ist 1$:

$ !o+anian Proto#hronis+ 1:; Clarifi#ations 1:9 he Birth of Proto#hronis+ 1;9 Eriters and Party in 1o#ialist !o+ania 189 Proto#hronis+ and Politi#s 188 he 'eter+ination of (al&e 188 Press !&ns, Literary Canons, and 3nfl&en#e Eithin the Eriters- Union 195 C&lt&ral A&thority, @Elitis+,@ and Fenealogi#al Appropriations 19; Co+peting (al&es and the Con#entration of C&lt&re in the Apparat&s 656 Proto#hronis+ and 1hortage 659 : Historiography in a Party =ode, Horea-s !evolt and the Prod&#tion of History 61$ Para+eters of the Prod&#tion of History in 1o#ialist !o+ania 618 he 'ebate over Horea-s !evolt 669 he Events 669 =eanings of the 'ebate 669 he A#tors 669 he @!evol&tion@ and *ational 3dentity 676 he @Uprising,@ 1#ien#e, and E&rope 679 he Prod&#tion of die 'ebate, 3ndivid&al and 3nstit&tional Co+petition 67$ he CentraliIation of Historiography &nder Politi#al Control 695 Historiography in a Party =ode 698 ; he @1#hool@ of Philosopher Constantin *oi#a 6$: Eho Eas Constantin *oi#aK 6:5 he Battle over *oi#a as a Contest for !epr#s#nrativ#n#ss 6:: he 'efinition of Philosophy and the Clai+s of 3ntelle#t&als 6:; 1alvation thro&gh C&lt&re and trie%Prod&#tion of Urgen#y 6;8 !epresentativeness and the Pro#ess of C&lt&ral !eprod&#tion 689 "ro+ C&lt&ral Creation to Politi#al A#tion 68; Unifying the "ield of Dpposition, Philosophy, Literary Criti#is+, and Edii#s 68; *oi#is+, PoBer, and the J&estion of A&dien#e 697 4 CD* E* 1 Con#l&sion 756 *ational 3deology &nder 1o#ialis+ 75$ 3ntelle#t&als, Dpposition, and the PoBer 'is#o&rse 759 *D E1 719 B3BL3DF!APHC 7:; 3*'EG 797 "ig&res 1%6 97 7 658 9 671

of

Preface 4i he +an&s#ript of this book Bas sent to the press on *ove+ber 8, 1989L on *ove+ber 9 the Berlin Eall Bas opened, +arking the beginning of the end of @a#t&ally e4isting so#ialis+@ in Eastern E&rope. 1i4 Beeks later the last &nrefor+ed regi+e in the region Bas overthroBn, Bith the flight and e4e#&tion of !o+anian di#tator *i#olae Cea&Mes#&. hese events #hanged not only the fa#e of Eastern E&rope b&t, +ore +odestly, the signifi#an#e of this book. "ro+ being an analysis of hoB #&lt&ral prod&#tion and national ideology are intertBined in a so#ialist so#iety, it be#a+e a re#ent history of a noB%very%different f&t&re #&lt&ral and national politi#s, in the transition fro+ so#ialis+ to Bhatever Bill #o+e after it. As +y open%ended analysis s&ddenly be#a+e self%#ontained, 3 #o&ld #hange +y tenses and #lose the dossier on #&lt&ral politi#s in Bhat 3 #all 0Bith irony2 @C#a&s#s#&-s !o+ania.@ 3 have resisted the &rge to &pdate the te4t Bith events of the +o+ent, s&++ariIing in the Con#l&sion those events related to +y narrative/ parti#&larly Bhat happened to persons +entioned in these pages after 'e#e+ber 66, 1989. he present for+ of +y st&dy #a+e into e4isten#e in 1988 as the #on#l&ding #hapter of another book, on hoB !o+anian intelle#t&als developed the idea of the nation over three #ent&ries. As that @#hapter@ lengthened to be#o+e its oBn book, 3 set aside the Bork that o&ght logi#ally to have pre#eded it. 3 +ention this history be#a&se a n&+ber of !o+anian s#holars and instit&tions that s&pported +y resear#h on the original proNe#t, and Bho+ 3 did not infor+ of +y belated #hange in .4ii. dire#tion, Bill be a+aIed to se# this as its res&lt. 3t is i+portant for +e to affir+ that +y original proNe#t proposal Bas +ade in good faith and Bill event&ally, 3 hope, bear its intended fr&it. he +otivation for that proNe#t Bas s&ited to this one as Bell, to &nderstand a pheno+enon +any !o+anians regard as of the &t+ost i+portan#e/their national identity and ideas #on#erning it/as a Bay of repaying their patien#e Bith +y earlier resear#h, Bhi#h had addressed +y oBn interests rather than theirs. *eedless to say, Bhat began as their topi# Bas soon trans+&ted by its #onta#t Bith A+eri#an so#ial s#ien#e and +ay no longer be Bholly re#ogniIable to the+. 3f, as 3 #lai+ in this st&dy, all intelle#t&al a#tivity is rooted in so#ial life and i+ple+ents val&es even Bhen it #lai+s ne&trality, then 3 sho&ld lay +y oBn val&es on the line as e4pli#itly as did those Bho ar# its s&bNe#ts and fro+ Bho+ 3 have learned that s#holarship is politi#s. Dn one level, +y s#holarly politi#s in#l&de an effort to &tiliIe analyti# ter+s #rafted for the syste+s in <&estion, rather than politi#al +odels derived fro+ Bestern politi#al syste+sL to e4a+ine in a relatively distan#ed +anner the ter+s e+ployed by all parti#ipants in an arg&+ent and not to adopt straightaBay the affe#ts, +eanings, or N&stifi#ations offered by either sideL and to insist that the a#tivity of #&lt&ral prod&#tion is per+eated Bith politi#s and that #&lt&re itself is best seen as a for+ of pra#ti#e, rather than as a set of +eanings to be e4pli#ated. hese @politi#al@ val&es pla#e +e in a #ertain relation to theories and +ethodologies in other dis#iplines and Bithin +y oBn. 3 believe that i+ple+enting these val&es enables both f&ller &nderstanding of the sit&ation of !o+anian intelle#t&als, passionately defining their nation-s identity Bhile str&g% gling for their livelihood, and an enlarged #apa#ity to learn fro+ the+, toBard #larifying the #onditions of intelle#t&al a#tivity at ho+e.

Beyond this, hoBever, 3 fo&nd +yself #o+pelled to eval&ate the positions of +y resear#h s&bNe#ts, as Bell, Bhi#h re<&ired i+posing +y oBn set of @ideologi#al@ val&es. 3 had at first intended to present #onfli#ts a+ong intelle#t&als in Cea&Mes#&Os !o+ania fro+ a #o+pletely ne&tral stan#e, resisting the poBerf&l te+ptation to adopt the val&es of +y #losest asso#iates, Bho belonged #hiefly to one fa#tion. 3 hoped to avoid Bhat all +y asso#iates des#ribed as their oBn e4perien#e of being ine4orably p&shed in the dire#tion of one or other @#a+p.@ *onetheless, 3 too s&##&+bed to the press&res. Even tho&gh 3 atte+pt to +aintain a fair degree of obNe#tivity in these pages, and even tho&gh 3 #riti#iIe all parties for reinfor#ing an ideology basi# to reprod&#ing their proble+ati# so#ial order, 3 too have taken sides. Life in Cea&Mes#&-s !o+ania .4iii. Bas so &npleasant that 3 si+ply #o&ld not re+ain ne&tral in the fa#e of eviden#e that one or another fa#tion Bas #ontrib&ting disproportionately to the +isery. Before the fall of the regi+e, +y role Bo&ld have been to s&pport those Bhose voi#es Bere being silen#ed by the apparat&s of repression, b&t as it happened, they soon gained their oBn platfor+s. 3 noB se# the politi#al &tility of +y analysis as draBing attention to #ertain gro&ps and, espe#ially, #ertain ta#ti#s that 3 e4pe#t Bill feed de+agogy and intoleran#e in !o+ania after Cea&Mes#&. 3n de#iding Bhi#h side to take, 3 #hose to defend not @tr&th@ or @e4pertise@ b&t, rather, those very A+eri#an val&es that #ha+pion a pl&ralist resistan#e to the totaliIation of so#ial life. 3f to #hoose sides on the basis of these val&es is to reinfor#e a #ertain ideology basi# to reprod&#ing o&r oBn proble+ati# so#ial order, so be it.

Acknowledgments G( A n&+ber of !o+anian s#holars read parts of this book in +an&s#riptL several Bere good eno&gh to disagree/often violently/Bith its arg&+ents. "or +ost, their na+es 0along Bith those of other #olleag&es2 appear in a footnote to the spe#ifi# #hapters they helped to i+prove. A feB, hoBever, played so i+portant a part in the Bhole Bork that 3 Bish to sal&te and thank the+ here as Bell. Dne na+e appears Bith disproportionate fre<&en#y in these pages, that of =ihai 'in& Fheorghi&L this brilliant !o+anian so#iologist #ontrib&ted so +&#h to +y treat+ent of !o+anian #&lt&re that 3 so+eti+es think he sho&ld be #o% a&thor. =y efforts Bere sti+&lated and en#o&raged also by historian Ale4andr& >&b, Bho not only gave +e ho&rs of #onversation and passed on to +e inn&+erable bibliographi# referen#es b&t, together Bith 1orin Antohi and =ihai Fher+an, also verified a n&+ber of titles and <&otations 3 Bas &nable to #onfir+ at ho+e. Pavel CP+pean& and Qtefana 1teriade, in the United 1tates on a "&lbright grant Bhile 3 Bas Briting the book, read +ost of the #hapters and offered e4tensive #riti#is+. Andrei and 'elia =arga provided +e Bith not N&st e4#ellent intelle#t&al advi#e b&t +e+orable friendship and hospitality. "inally, A#ade+i#ian 'avid Prodan, Bho kneB nothing abo&t this book Bhile it Bas being Britten and +ay Bell not like it, inspired it in tBo respe#ts, by +aking +e realiIe hoB deeply !o+anian intelle#t&als feel the +atter of their national identity and hoB #entral it is to the best Borks of !o+anian #&lt&re, and by his intransigent e4a+ple, Bhi#h +ade +e Bant to .4vi. st&dy s#holarly resistan#e to !o+anian party r&le. 3 re+ain his deeply gratef&l ad+irer. "riends and #olleag&es in the United 1tates helped +ake this book possible in other Bays. Fail )lig+an read the entire +an&s#ript and provided #onstant assistan#e and #riti#is+L +&lRa+ fain, draga. =y #olleag&es in anthropology at Sohns Hopkins/1idney =intI, E+ily =artin, Fillian Ee#l#y%Harnik, =i#h#l%!olph ro&illot, and Ashraf Fhani/not only i+proved spe#ifi# #hapters b&t have literally shaped +y vision as a s#holar in Bays too thoro&gh%going to a#knoBledge. 3 oBe a spe#ial debt to E+ily =artin, Bho as depart+ent #hair #reated +any opport&nities s&pportive of +y Briting, and to Ashraf Fhani, for his gift of pointing o&t that one-s a#hieve+ents ar# greater than one +ight have tho&ght. All s#holars sho&ld be as fort&nate in their #ollegial environ+ent as 3. Dthers Bhose en#o&rage+ent or s&ggestions +ade an i+portant differen#e in#l&de 'avid E. Cohen, Sane ". Collier, )eith Hit#hins, *or+an =an#a, Eri#a 1#hoenberger, and, +ore personally, 'ori, So, 1ido, +y parents and siblings, and +y favorite so#iologist. 3 a+ thankf&l for the assistan#e of several instit&tions. Frants fro+ the 3nternational !esear#h and E4#hanges Board 03!EG2, thro&gh f&nds provided by the *ational EndoB+ent for the H&+anities and the United 1tates 3nfor+ation Agen#y, s&pported +ost of +y resear#h. A felloBship at the EoodroB Eilson 3nternational Center for 1#holars, Eashington, '.C., enabled +e to Brite tBo #hapters free of other #hores and provided +e Bith the e4#ellent #o+pany of, a+ong others, =artin =eisel, =aria &dorova, Anne% =ari# Es#h#, Barbara So LantI, and Sohn La+pe. *either of these organiIations, of #o&rse, is responsible for the res&lts of their generosity. 3n !o+ania, +y resear#h Bas organiIed by the A#ade+y of 1o#ial and Politi#al 1#ien#es and took +e to the 3nstit&tes of History in Cl&N, lasi, and B&#harest, as Bell as to the University and A#ade+y Libraries in the sa+e three #itiesL +y thanks to

'an Fhib#rnea and to the dire#tors of those instit&tions for their #ordial Bel#o+e, and to Prof. Po+pili& #odor, +y resear#h sponsor early in the proNe#t 0before it took on its present #oloration2. he A+eri#an E+bassy in B&#harest provided #r&#ial logisti# s&pport/+ail and food. =y Bork on this proNe#t aro&sed +y great respe#t for the #o++it+ent, sophisti#ation, and talent of +any !o+anian intelle#t&als. =ay the end of Cea&ses#&Os r&le per+it these <&alities to no&rish as they deserve.

Introduction: Ideology, Cultural Politics, Intellectuals (he identity of a people and of a civili%ation is reflected and concentrated in what has been created by the mind)in what is known as culture. *f this identity is threatened with extinction, cultural life grows correspondingly more intense, more important, until cultural life itself becomes the living value around which all people rally. $&ilan +undcra' Culture is the arena in which there occurs the political struggle to obtain identity and legitimacy. $&ihai ,inu -heorghiu' 3n =ar#h of 1989, si4 for+er offi#ials of the !o+anian Co++&nist Party Brote an open letter to !o+anian President *i#olae Cea&Mes#& protesting his poli#ies.- A+ong their a##&sations Bas this, @!o+ania is and re+ains a E&ropean #o&ntry. . . . Co& have beg&n to #hange the geography of the r&ral areas, b&t yo& #annot +ove !o+ania into Afri#a.@ An T+igrT !o+anian Briter e#hoed this i+age, la+enting the shift fro+ @ideo#ra#y@ to @idio#ra#y@ in his native land and the @offensive against #o+peten#e, intelligen#e, talent, in a Bord, against #&lt&re@ and de#rying Cea&Mes#&-s personality #&lt as @Borthy of an .6. Afri#an state.@ Dther Briters, too, despaired at the tho&ght that !o+ania had #eased to be a E&ropean so#iety, and they begged assistan#e fro+ the @E&ropean fa+ily@ to restore !o+ania to the @#iviliIing prin#iples@ of the "ren#h !evol&tion, @!o+ania +&st on#e again ass&+e its pla#e in E&rope.@ A literary #riti# at Bar Bith a highly pla#ed Briter opened his book of essays Bith an anti%E&ropean <&otation fro+ his opponent 0@3 hate "ren#h for its +&#h%va&nted #artesianis+@2 and then, #alling s&#h an attit&de @barbarian,@ la&n#hed a defense of E&ropean #&lt&re against it. All over !o+ania, d&ring and after the violen#e that overthreB Cea&ses#&-s @barbarian@ r&le, de+onstrating st&dents #hanted @E&rope is Bith &sA@ and neBspapers and N&bilant !o+anians Briting their friends abroad e4#lai+ed, @Ee ar# ret&rning at last to E&ropeA@6 3ll&strating <&ite the #ontrary attit&de, a so#iologist insisted, @U5&r #&lt&reV #annot keep li+ping along behind E&ropean #iviliIation, fi4%at#d on a peripheral identity. . . . W D&rsV is not a s&baltern #&lt&re and the road to o&r val&es do#s not pass thro&gh the Eest.@ He Bas Noined by others Bho railed against E&ropean infl&en#e as an @intelle#t&al di#tatorship@ and @an atta#k on !o+anian #&lt&ral tradition.@ Dne #riti# #onde+ned die intolerable @boy#ott of o&r val&es,@ #o+plaining that @Be have translated the fo&rth book by U"ren#h anthropologistV Levi%1tra&ss b&t not one by UChi#ago%based !o+anian e+igreV =ir#ea Eliad#.@ 1till +ore graphi# ill&stration of these people-s point of vieB Bas the board ga+e @'a#ians and !o+ans@ being sold in !o+anian toy stores in 198;, Bhi#h #ast the 0@E&ropean@2 !o+ans as the ga+e-s villains against the 0@native@2 'a#ians.7 E&rope and Afri#a, #&lt&re and barbaris+, #olonial e4ploitation and Bestern di#tatorship, these i+ages ri#o#heted thro&gh the spa#e of !o+ania-s #&lt&ral and politi#al life in the 19;5s and 1985s. As is evident fro+ the e4&ltant E&ropeanis+ of the anti%Cea&Mes#& for#es, s&#h i+ages Bere the distilled e4pression of fier#e and passionate senti+ents, the e+ble+s of dia+etri#ally

opposed politi#al positions. o be against the regi+e had be#o+e synony+o&s Bith being pro%E&ropean, Bhereas Cea&Mes#& and those in fa#tions +ore or less allied Bith hi+ ranted against Bestern i+perialis+ and the E&ropeaniIing obliteration of the national so&l. Altho&gh these highly #harged sy+bols adorned politi#al spee#hes often eno&gh, it Bas in a so+eBhat different do+ain that they for+ed the very essen#e of politi#al dis#o&rse, in the Borld of !o+anian #&lt&re. hey Bere the #&rren#y of life%and%death str&ggles in intelle#t&al life &nder Cea&Mes#&. hey floBed easily, hoBever, betBeen intelle#t&al .7. and politi#al do+ains, for tBo reasons, one histori#al and one #onte+porary. 'ifferent politi#al options had been intertBined for over three #ent&ries Bith alternative definitions or representations of !o+anian identity 0as E&ropean, as eastern, as so+ething different fro+ both2L and the relations established betBeen !o+anian intelle#t&als and the Co++&nist party ens&red that #&lt&ral life Bo&ld be entangled Bith politi#s. his book is abo&t hoB i+ages of !o+anian identity entered into battle Bith one another in the politi#iIed Borld of !o+anian #&lt&re and, in so doing, perpet&ated a !o+anian national ideology Bithin an order #lai+ing to be so#ialist. 3t is abo&t the relations a+ong those Bho #reated s&#h i+ages 0different gro&ps of intelle#t&als or, +ore broadly, prod&#ers of #&lt&re2, and betBeen the+ and the leadership of the !o+anian Co++&nist Party. hese vario&s gro&ps, prod&#ers of #&lt&re and of r&le, Brote and talked abo&t @the nation,@ #onstr&#ting it as a politi#ally relevant field of dis#o&rse. heir Bords #oe4isted Bith Bords on other the+es and Bith a larger set of strategies that in#l&ded s&btle #oer#ion and o&tright violen#e. ogether, these for+ed the syste+ of @legiti+ation@ or @#onsent@ in Cea&ses#&-s !o+ania, as Bell as the ele+ents of its transfor+ation. he folloBing #hapters dis#&ss intelle#t&als#ontrib&tion to these pro#esses, asking hoB philosophers, artists, Briters, historians, No&rnalists, and others #reated and re#reated a national ideology, and Bhat differen#e it +ade that this Bas o##&rring in a @so#ialist@ syste+ rather than one of another kind. Underlying these ar# larger <&estions, Ehat Bas there abo&t tBentieth%#ent&ry 1oviet%type so#ialis+ that bro&ght politi#s and #&lt&re together in +&t&ally infor+ing BaysK Ehat Bas there abo&t the idea of @the nation@ that +ade it so apt a N&n#tion for #&lt&re and politi#sK And Bhat #onse<&en#es, finally, did the dis#o&rse on the nation have for the so#ialist order that so&ght to appropriate itK =ost of this book deals Bith apparently esoteri# +atters/arg&+ents a+ong so#iologists, literary #riti#s, historians, and philosophers. 3ts signifi#an#e, hoBever, goes far beyond these. o begin Bith, it is pre#isely the ne4&s betBeen politi#s and #&lt&re Bhi#h enables &s to &nderstand Bhy the neB govern+ent that e+erged in late 'e#e+ber 1989 in#l&ded not only #o++&nist refor+ers b&t several poets 0s&#h as =ir#ea 'ines#& and Ana Blandiana2, literary #riti#s 0A&rel 'ragos =&ntean&2, philosophers and aestheti#ians 0=ihai Qora, Andrei PleM&2, and a tea#her of "ren#h 0'oina Cornea2. he !o+anian e4a+ple #an thereby enlighten even +ore striking instan#es of the sa+e thing, s&#h .9. as (a#lav Havel-s e4traordinary transfor+ation fro+ Nailed playBright to president of CIe#hoslovakia. =ore i+portant, 3 believe, is the relevan#e of the +aterial in this book to Bhat Bill s&rely be a pro+inent feat&re of Eastern E&rope in its transition fro+ so#ialis+, national ideologies and the +obiliIation of national senti+ents in the neB @de+o#rati#@ politi#s. 1o+e #o++entators attrib&te a possible @neB

nationalis+@ to the res&s#itation of interBar politi#s, as if everything that had intervened Bas in#onse<&ential. 3n #ontrast, 3 se# national ideology as having been b&ilt &p in !o+ania thro&gho&t the #o++&nist period/and not N&st by the Party-s re#o&rse to it, b&t by intelle#t&als- #ontin&ed elaboration of the national idea, Bhi#h Bas also highly f&n#tional Bithin !o+ania-s so#ialist politi#al e#ono+y 0se# #hapters 7 and $2. =oreover, 3 s&ggest, this national ideology disr&pted the =ar4ist dis#o&rse and th&s/despite the Co++&nist party-s apparent appropriation of it/Bas a +aNor ele+ent in destroying the Party-s legiti+a#y. he analysis in these #hapters, then, not only offers the history of hoB a national identity Bas reprod&#ed Bithin a parti#&lar Eastern E&ropean so#ialis+ and hoB it #ontrib&ted to &nder+ining that so#ial order, b&t also ill&+inates the #onte4t for politi#s in the 1995s and the pla#e national ideologies Bill o##&py in the+. =y analysis pres&pposes that intelle#t&al a#tivity is #o+ple4ly related to poBer and +ay #onstr&#t e+poBering ideologies even Bhen intelle#t&als intend otherBise. 3n addition, 3 pres&ppose that intelle#t&al a#tivity is sit&ated, that it do#s not e+anate fro+ a ne&tral Ione of ideas floating freely above and indifferent to so#ial #onfli#t, order, and interest b&t that it is, rather, one of several instr&+ents for realiIing these. 3ntelle#t&al arg&+ents abo&t identity ar# so+eti+es seen as e4pressing die dile++as of those fro+ s&baltern #&lt&res 0se#, e.g., HerIfeld 1989, 198;L SoBitt 19;8L 1&gar et al. 198$2, and #ontradi#tory i+ages of national @selves@/as eastern, as Bestern, and so forth /are so+eti+es read as eviden#e of #onf&sion abo&t identity, res&lting fro+ interstitial pla#e+ent betBeen do+inating i+perial poBers 0HerIfeld 198;, 116, 119L =#*eill 19:9, 6592. Altho&gh 3, too, re#ogniIe that the over% Bhel+ing #ross#&rrents of infl&en#e fro+ poBerf&l @#ores@ have profo&ndly disorienting effe#ts on intelle#t&als in @peripheries,@ 3 take a different approa#h in this book. 3 atte+pt to shoB hoB vario&s gro&ps, vario&sly sit&ated in !o+anian so#iety, have taken advantage of these #ross#&rrents to prod&#e rival i+ages of their nation Bhile #o+peting .$. Bith one another to be the nation-s a#knoBledged #&lt&ral representatives. 3t is for this reason that 3 se# <&estions of identity as Brapped &p in a politi#s of #&lt&re, Bhose res&lt is to strengthen the national ideology. =y analysis has several different a&dien#es #on#erned Bith diverse literat&res and #on#ept&al iss&es. Anthropologists, so#iologists, politi#al s#ientists, and historians have p&rs&ed either theoreti#ally or e+piri#ally one or another of the the+es 3 e4plore. hese in#l&de the politi#s of #&lt&re 0espe#ially in so#ialist so#ieties2L the so#ial role of intelle#t&als and their relation to poBerL the theoreti#al analysis of so#ialist%type syste+sL and pro#esses Bhereby hege+ony, ideology, and legiti+ating dis#o&rses/spe#ifi#ally national ones/ are for+ed. 'ifferent fa#ets of the book Bill re#o++end it to different a&dien#es. "ro+ an anthropologi#al point of vieB, it #ontrib&tes to Britings on the politi#al e#ono+y of #&lt&ral prod&#tion and on #&lt&re as pra#ti#e 0@#&l% t&re@ &nderstood here in the sense of @high #&lt&re,@ Bhi#h is also, of #o&rse, a for+ of #&lt&re as anthropologists &s&ally treat it2. he book also addresses literat&re in so#ial theory/espe#ially the Bork of "o&#a&lt, Fra+s#i, !ay+ond Eillia+s, and Pierre Bo&rdie&/on the nat&re of dis#o&rse, of intelle#t&al Bork, and of the relation of these to poBer. A+ong other things, 3 seek to +odify Bo&rdie&-s notions of @#&lt&ral #apital@ and @sy+boli# +arkets,@ Bhi#h 3 se# as inappropriate for so#ialist syste+s, Bhere @#apital@ and @+arkets@ do not Bork as in the syste+s he des#ribes. Politi#al s#ientists interested in #p#stions of

legiti+ation, espe#ially in the very pre#ario&s regi+es of the for+erly so#ialist Eastern E&rope, +ay find +y treat+ent of this iss&e &sef&l, along Bith +y a##o&nt of politi#king in !o+anian #&lt&re. 1t&dents of histori#al and #onte+porary national ideologies +ay benefit fro+ +y so+eBhat &n&s&al definition of @ideology@ and +y atypi#al a##o&nt of nationalis+, as #o+pared Bith the +odalities #o++on to intelle#t&al history and politi#al analysis. An investigation of these s&bNe#ts +ight do or o&ght to do +any things that this one do#s notL 3 sho&ld state its li+itations at the o&tset. "irst, and +ost alar+ingly to +any of +y !o+anian friends, this book does not pretend to be a st&dy of !o+ania-s #&lt&ral life &nder Cea&Mes#& and of the Borks of val&e it prod&#ed. Df the several !o+anian #olleag&es Bho read parts of this book in draft, nearly all #o+plained that it tells too little abo&t the e4#ellent things that appeared in !o+anian art, letters, and s#holarship. 3 agree Bith the+ that +&#h of val&e Bas #reated, b&t to des#ribe it and its #ontrib&tion to !o+anian .:. #iviliIation is not +y ai+. he entire orientation of this Bork proble+atiIes the notion of @val&e@ their &rgings took for granted. 3n short, persons #o+ing to the book for a taste of !o+ania-s #&lt&ral a#hieve+ents Bill leave it h&ngry. Altho&gh 3 have, #ertainly, +y preferen#es in !o+anian #&lt&re and s#holarship, 3 vieB +y oBn eval&ations as sit&ated, N&st like those of !o+anians. 3 see +y task in these #hapters not pri+arily as &pholding one or another of their definitions of #&lt&ral val&e b&t as in<&iring into the total field in Bhi#h different definitions of val&e #onfli#ted Bith ea#h other. 3f in the end 3 nevertheless take sides, 3 do so not fro+ &n<&estioned atta#h+ent to val&es of @tr&th@ or @#reative freedo+@ b&t be#a&se, in an irredee+ably A+eri#an Bay, 3 prefer pl&ralis+ to #entraliIation. 'espite the self%serving <&ality of intelle#t&al invo#ations of tr&th and #reative freedo+, 3 s&pport the a#tions of any gro&p that tends to sloB the absorption of val&es into the politi#al #enter and to +aintain an environ+ent of alternative possibilities. An analysis of elite dis#o&rse or ideology +ight be e4pe#ted to ask hoB these shape the s&bNe#tivities, or the #ons#io&sness, of persons in so#iety. 1o+e s#holars Bo&ld phrase the entire proble+ in this Bay, rather than talking abo&t hoB do+ination is ideologi#ally organiIed, they Bo&ld investigate the aspe#ts of poBer relations in Bhi#h the identity of gro&ps and individ&als is at stake, #reating in people an e4perien#e or a #ons#io&sness that +akes the+ s&bNe#ts 0"o&#a&lt 1986, 616L Corrigan and 1ayer 198$, 1%172. 1#holarship has only N&st beg&n to s#rat#h the s&rfa#e of this fas#inating proble+L the present book Bill not #arve into it +ore deeply. As for the +ore general relation of intel % le#t&al dis#o&rse to @the +asses@ 0the @is%anyone%list#ning@ proble+2, the #ir#&+stan#es of +y resear#h +ade it diffi#&lt for +e to ansBer this <&estion. 9 =ore i+portant, 3 do not think that every interest in p&bli# dis#o&rse +&st be treated in a Bhole%so#ietal Bay. 3t is legiti+ate to ask hoB #o++&nities of #&lt&re%prod&#ers Bere engaged Bith the Co++&nist party Bitho&t also asking Bhat peasants and Borkers tho&ght of it all. 3 pro#eed, therefore, to look pri+arily at a#tivities Bithin the elite, seeing there a pro#ess of ideologi#al #onstr&#tion Bhose #onse<&en#es for the +asses #an and sho&ld be st&died in their oBn right. 3 refer readers interested in the latter proble+ to Fail )lig+an-s Bork on the !o+anian party-s atte+pt to #reate a +ass #&lt&re, eli+inating altogether the distin#tion/#entral to the pheno+ena 3 Brite abo&t here/betBeen +ass and elite #&lt&re 0)lig+an =12.$ A final set of li+itations has to do Bith +y so&r#es and the Bay 3 .;. treat the+. his book is #hiefly abo&t vario&s for+s of spee#h a#ts, +ostly printed.

0"or +y interpretations 3 also rely &pon e4tensive #onversations Bith !o+anian intelle#t&als, b&t 3 do not dire#tly #ite the+.2 3 a+ not trained in dis#o&rse analysis and interpret these te4ts differently fro+ those Bho ar#. 3 do not attend ade<&ately, for e4a+ple, to <&estions of genre, s&#h as the differen#e betBeen things p&blished as books or as arti#les in periodi#als. o so+e e4tent, that differen#e Bas often +oot for the +aterial 3 dis#&ss, be#a&se arti#les Bere #olle#ted into books and books Bere often serialiIed in periodi#als 0so+eti+es in <&ite signifi#ant Bays, as #hapter ; Bill shoB2. 3 a+ attentive to the kind of periodi#al a pie#e appeared in, b&t do not ask if the for+ in Bhi#h it Bas p&blished is signifi#ant. =oreover, 3 do not attend +&#h in this book to silen#es. Altho&gh 3 do indi#ate a feB signifi#ant silen#es, on the Bhole this book #on#erns Bhat Bas said +ore than Bhat Bas s&ppressed. his is a li+itation, be#a&se the #entraliIation of dis#o&rse &nder the #ontrol of the !o+anian party #onferred ever greater val&e &pon silen#e. 1ilen#e be#a+e a Bay of resisting totaliIation. *evertheless, one #o&ld fight only so far Bith silen#e, for people str&ggling to obtain the reso&r#es ne#essary to prod&#e #&lt&re, spee#h be#a+e essential. Dne #o&ld not +ake a #lai+ or N&stify one-s rights to an allo#ation silently. h&s, given hoB !o+ania-s so#ialist b&rea&#ra#y Borked 0see #hapter 62, poBer for#ed spee#h, prod&#ers of #&lt&re #o&ld not hold their gro&nd if they ref&sed to speak &p.: "or this reason, 3 believe that despite the signifi#an#e of silen#e, Be #an still learn so+ething val&able abo&t #&lt&ral politi#s by attending to spee#h.

Concepts and Terms

*early every ter+ in the title of this book is i+pre#ise and its definition #ontested. Altho&gh there is a #ertain r&di+entary agree+ent on Bhat @national@ and @identity@ +ean 0not, hoBever, on the pro#esses that generate national and ethni# identities2, the sa+e #annot be said of @ideology,@ Bhi#h has +&ltiple and #ontradi#tory &ses. @1o#ialis+@ has #hanged radi#ally in a very short ti+e. @C&lt&re@ is both vag&e and spe#ifi#, a lay notion and a spe#ialist one. 3t Bill be easier to folloB +y dis#&ssion if 3 e4plain hoB 3 &nderstand s&#h ter+s. Be#a&se +y a+bition in this book falls short of theoreti#ally advan#ing these .8. #on#epts, 3 have dispensed Bith an e4tended #riti#al revieB of the literat&re #on#erning the+ and have restri#ted +yself to Bhat is ne#essary to lo#ate +y #on#ept&al point of depart&re. 3n the re+ainder of this introd&#tion 3 Bill dis#&ss @ideology,@ @#&lt&ral politi#s,@ and @intelle#% t&als,@ reserving +y so+eBhat lengthier treat+ent of @so#ialis+@ for #hapter 6.

IDEOLOGY, LEGITIMACY, HEGEMONY

3 begin Bith @ideology@ be#a&se so+e notion of its +eaning Bill be ne#essary for dis#&ssing the other ter+s treated beloB. Any a&thor Bho p&ts the Bord @ideology@ in a book title is asking for tro&ble. 3 do so partly be#a&se so+e of this book-s possible readers Bo&ld never even pi#k it &p if the title #ontained the Bord @dis#o&rse,@ Bhi#h in so+e Bays +ight serve +y p&rposes better 0tho&gh not by definitional si+plifi#ation2. Dther ter+s that one o##asionally finds tangled &p Bith these tBo in#l&de @#ons#io&sness,@ @legiti+ation,@ and @hege+ony.@ HoB do 3 &nderstand these ter+s and Bhat pla#e do they have in this bookK he easiest to dispose of is @#ons#io&sness,@ for it is largely e4traneo&s to +y

interests in this analysis. Cons#io&sness is, nat&rally, an #le+ent of any so#ial e4perien#e involving national val&es, and the for+ation of a #ons#io&sness that feels itself to be national is a #o+ple4 and fas#inating proble+L b&t it is not +y proble+ in these #hapters, e4#ept indire#tly 0so+e for+ of #ons#io&sness being i+pli#ated in the a#tions of persons 3 dis#&ss2. As stated above, 3 a+ also not +&#h #on#erned Bith the e4tent to Bhi#h the national ideology being for+ed and reprod&#ed thro&gh elite dis#o&rses has entered into the #ons#io&sness of @the +asses.@ his #hoi#e is parti#&larly defensible for the present #ase, in Bhi#h +ost of the a#tion o##&rred betBeen intelle#t&als and the Party b&rea&#ra#y, a#tion to Bhi#h the broader p&bli# Bas fairly irrelevant. 3 a+ less interested in <&estions of #ons#io&sness than in <&estions of representation, hoB Bas !o+anian identity represented, Bhat i+ages of the nation Bere proposed and fo&ght over, and hoB ar# Be to &nderstand the so#ial spa#e fro+ Bhi#h these i+ages Bere generatedK DBing to the so&r#es 3 e+ploy, these i+ages ar# largely dis#&rsive, offered in politi#ally relevant p&bli# dis#o&rse. 3 do not &se the ter+ @dis#o&rse@ in its stri#tly "o&#a&ldian sense 0as so+ething independent of the s&bNe#ts Bho ar# its agents2, yet 3 folloB "o&#a&lt in ass&+ing .9. that it is not ne#essarily abo&t @#ons#io&sness.@ =oreover, like hi+ 3 ass&+e that dis#o&rse a#<&ires its oBn properties and a&tono+ies be%vond the &tteran#es that bear it. 1pe#ifi#ally, in the sit&ations 3 dis#&ss, it is obvio&s that !o+anian intelle#t&als- #apa#ity to a#t Bas li+ited by their parti#ipating in dis#&rsive fields, in Bhi#h no one effe#tively #ontrolled Bhat Bas said, as people-s Bords entered into a dis#&rsive field, they Bere instantly available for reinterpretation, to be seiIed and t&rned against their speakers. 'is#o&rse is, for the #ases 3 e4a+ine, the +ost #o++on for+ of signifying pra#ti#e thro&gh Bhi#h ideologi#al pro#esses o##&rred. 3 speak, Bhenever possible, of @ideologi#al pro#esses@ rather than @ideology@ be#a&se the reifi#ation see+s to +e/as so often happens/to violate the pheno+enon of interest. *onetheless, it is i+possible, this being English and not so+e other lang&age, to avoid the reifying no&n. By @ideology@ 3 do not intend the generally peNorative sense that has #l&ng to the Bord sin#e its early days, and in parti#&lar 3 intend neither the @false #ons#io&sness@ nor the @propaganda@ +eanings #o++on to f&nda+entalists of =ar4ist or sovietologi#al pers&asion. 3deologi#al pro#esses ar# not N&st a for+ of blinding, and they are not Bell e4e+plified by their offi#ial 1oviet version 0in "#her-s Bords, @1oviet ideology is not an ideology b&t a dog+a@L se# "#her et al. 1987, 1882. *or do 3 &nder% stand this #on#ept as referring si+ply to a syste+ of tho&ght, or to ideas or beliefs held. !ather, it +eans the syste+i#ally str&#t&red pro#esses and the e4perien#ed so#ial relations thro&gh Bhi#h h&+an s&bNe#tivities ar# #onstit&ted and thro&gh Bhi#h h&+ans a#t &pon the Borld. 3deologies/and 3 e+ploy the pl&ral be#a&se there are alBays +ore than one, for+ing ideologi#al and dis#&rsive fields/are beliefs or ideas +aterialiIed in a#tion, often in politi#al #onfli#t 0for Bhi#h ideology #onstit&tes an arena2, and often in dis#&rsive for+. ; o the e4tent that @ideologies@ th&s #on#eived shape #ons#io&sness, the e+phasis is &pon their doing so thro&gh e4perien#e and a#tion Bithin so#ial relations, rather than thro&gh thinking or hearing abo&t s&#h relations. o ask Bhether ideology @refle#ts@ so#ial and e#ono+i# relations is less &sef&l than to se# it as a +eans for enfor#ing and #ontesting the+. 3deologi#al pro#esses are #ontests in Bhi#h alternative #on#eptions of the Borld enter into #onfli#t and, thro&gh their en#o&nter, a##eptan#e of or resistan#e to the e4isting order of

do+ination is f&rthered. 3n talking of ideology that is national, 3 refer to dis#&rsive str&ggles in Bhi#h the #on#ept of @the nation@ or @the !o+anian people@ has for+ed a #entral preo##&pation, so+eti+es interse#ting Bith other sorts of .15. dis#&rsive str&ggles 0abo&t develop+ent, for e4a+ple, or so#ialis+, or the state2 not treated here. 03 do not se# national ideology as synony+o&s Bith @nationalis+,@ a Bord that rarely appears in this book sin#e it has, for so+e East E&ropeans, a negative #onnotation 3 Bish to avoid.2 3deologi#al pro#esses are a+ong the +ost basi# to any +ode of do+ination, for thro&gh the+ ar# for+ed Bhat Fra+s#i #alls hege+ony, the ins#ription of #onsent into vario&s for+s of #oer#ion, thro&gh Bhi#h s&bordinate gro&ps a##ept their s&bordination. Hall e4presses Bell the relation betBeen the tBo notions, U3Vdeology provides the @#e+ent@ in a so#ial for+ation, . . . not be#a&se the do+inant #lasses #an pres#ribe and pros#ribe, in detail, the +ental #ontent of die lives of s&bordinate #lasses 0they too, @live@ in their oBn ideologies2, b&t be#a&se they strive and to a degree s&##eed in fra+ing all #o+peting definitions of reality Bithin their range, bringing all alternatives Bithin their horiIon of tho&ght. . . . Fra+s#i +akes it plain that ideologi#al hege+ony +&st be Bon and s&stained thro&gh the e4isting ideologies, and that at any ti+e this Bill represent a #o+ple4 field 0Hall 19;9, 777, original e+phases2. Hege+ony s&ggests a so#iety%Bide reg&lariIation of dis#&rsive prod&#tions and pra#ti#es that #li#k +ini+al #ontestation fro+ the s&bN&gated. 3t is provisional, a +atter of degree, and is not present at all ti+es in all so#ieties. A+ong those fro+ Bhi#h it Bas Bholly absent ar# those of East E&ropean so#ialis+.8 o dis#&ss these #ases, 3 prefer a perhaps idiosyn#rati# &se of the +ore li+ited #on#ept of legiti+a#y. 9 3n Eeber-s for+&lation, this #on#ept does not +ean that all +aNor gro&ps in a so#iety a##ept the syste+ of do+inationL it +eans only the assent of a part of the pop&lation, Bith the re+ainder not adhering to so+e alternative i+age of a possible so#ial order. 15 3n short, it is the nonorganiIation of an effe#tive #o&nteri+age. Legiti+a#y is not ne#essarily the opposite of for#e, for if a seg+ent of the pop&lation sees a regi+e as having effe#tive for#e they +ay fail to organiIe against it for that reason, Bhi#h +akes it @legiti+ate.@ A si+ilar point is +ade by Corrigan and 1ayer 0198$, 1982, @3ntegration Uof persons into a polityV needs to be &nderstood at least as +&#h in ter+s of rendering the s&bordinated spee#hless/striking the+ d&+b/as in ter+s of the a#tive se#&ring of assent.@ "ro+ a different angle, legiti+a#y in this sense +ay interse#t Bith Bo&rdie&-s notion of @do4a,@ that Bhi#h is taken for granted, Bhi#h goes Bitho&t saying and is therefore &n<&estioned 0Bo&rdie& 19;;, 1::2L this is rather different, hoBever, fro+ #onsent. Dne sho&ld pro#eed Bith #a&tion, then, in ass&+ing that #onsent is ne#essary to legiti+ation. .11. 3 Bo&ld arg&e that like Fra+s#i-s hege+ony, legiti+a#y is alBays in pro#ess and is linked Bith ideology and ideologi#al str&ggle. Parti#&larly i+portant in both pro#esses is debateX Bhi#h #onstr&#ts hege+onies or legiti+ating ideologies by obs#&ring the pre+ises &pon Bhi#h the debate o##&rs. o the e4tent that debate thereby pro+otes &nspoken agree+ent/hoBsoever #ir#&+s#ribed/on #ertain f&nda+ental pre+ises, then one #an speak of this as a @legiti+ating o&t#o+e@ or @legiti+ating +o+ent.@ he i+portan#e of debate in generating s&#h o&t#o+es s&ggests that ideologi#al fields are pree+inently fields of disagree+ent 0Fhani 198;2, rather than of #ons#io&s, #onsenting belief. he basis for &nderstanding legiti+ating +o+ents and the larger ideo%

logi#al pro#esses they parti#ipate in is th&s to look at lang&age as a real+ of disagree+ent that is, si+&ltaneo&sly, a real+ of agree+ent/ on pre+ises s&#h as the e4isten#e of @the nation,@ for instan#e.@ 0=y Bording sho&ld not s&ggest that dis#&rsive fields ar# alBays &nified. he e4tent to Bhi#h people engage in loosely #oe4isting, overlapping, frag+ented fields of dis#o&rse as opposed to fairly &nitary ones varies fro+ #ase to #ase. "or the !o+anian #ase, Party #ontrol +ade the dis#&rsive field +ore &nified than +ost.2 3f there Bas an ideology in Cea&Mes#&-s !o+ania that had potentially hege+oni# for#e, it Bas national ideology. (irt&ally all !o+anians a##epted and still a##ept the i+portan#e of the national idea, Bith its a##o+panying &nifi#ation of the so#ial Borld 0and its i+plied bl&rring of internal so#ial divisions2. Lefort arg&es that a pe#&liar #hara#teristi# of Bhat he #alls @totalitarian@ ideologies is the prod&#tion of a &nified dis#o&rse that e4pli#itly asserts the ho+ogeneity of the so#ial do+ain 0Lefort 198:, 6892L this Bo&ld +ake national ideology a #andidate for hege+ony in so#ialist !o+ania. HoBever, !o+anians Bho agreed that so+ething #alled @the nation@ e4ists Bere far fro+ agreed on hoB to define and prote#t it. 1o+e arg&ed to +e, +oreover, that the Party-s effort to pree+pt the dis#o&rse on the nation threatened to eva#&ate national ideology of the #le+ent of #onsent the regi+e Bas seeking. "or these reasons, then, 3 se# str&ggles over @the nation@ in !o+ania as part of pro#esses 3 Bo&ld #all ideologi#al and potentially legiti+ating, b&t not hege+oni#.16 Alternatively, one #o&ld arg&e that in this #ase/and perhaps +ore generally/legiti+ation and hege+ony ar# nothing b&t pro#esses of str&ggle, rather tlian a#hieved #onditions, in other Bords, str&ggle is all there is.-7 he pro#ess of #ontention did not involve only individ&als and gro&ps, hoBever, b&t also dis#o&rses. As 3 s&ggest in #hapters 7 and 9, the years betBeen 199; and 1989 Bere the lo#&s of a battle betBeen .16. tBo poBerf&l dis#o&rses, =ar4is+, and the dis#o&rse on the nation. @ he nation@ entered into this battle fortified by +any de#ades of Bork that had given it an instit&tionaliIed base 0se# #hapter 12. 3n its en#o&nter Bith =ar4is+, it proved itself #apable of s&bordinating the latter and s&bverting its ter+s. h&s, @the nation@ as a kind of +aster sy+bol #an be seen to have str&#t&ring properties, dis#o&rses #on#erning it had the #apa#ity to interr&pt other dis#o&rses 0see La#la& =12 and redefine the+. A dis#o&rse abo&t &nity and #ontin&ity/the nation/over% Bhel+ed one abo&t differentiation and #hange/=ar4is+. his o&t#o+e shoBs another aspe#t of the ideologi#al #onstr&#tion in Bhi#h !o+anian intelle#t&als Bere taking part.

THE POLITICS OF CULTURE

3n this book, 3 do not &se the Bord @#&lt&re@ in the spe#ialist sense typi#al of +ost anthropologists, altho&gh the Bay in Bhi#h 3 treat +y s&bNe#t is very +&#h part of #onte+porary anthropologi#al re#onsiderations of Bhat @#&lt&re@ is or +eans.19 3nstead, 3 e+ploy the Bord in so+ething like its lay sense, and parti#&larly its +eaning as @high #&lt&re@/that is, Bhat artists, Briters, +&si#ians, and s#holars prod&#e, so+eti+es for fairly narroB spe#ialist a&dien#es and so+eti+es for broader p&bli#s. 3 &se the e4pression @politi#s of #&lt&re@ to refer to the pro#esses of #onfli#t and +ane&v#ring that go on both internal to #o++&nities of this kind of #&lt&ral prod&#er and betBeen the+ and the politi#al sphere @proper,@ do+inated by the Co++&nist party, as it so&ght to +anage and shape the #&lt&re being prod&#ed.

!esear#h into the politi#s of #&lt&re pro#eeds, in its +ost general for+, along a path opened by =ilan )&nd#ra-s #elebrated re+ark in he Book of La&ghter and "orgettingX @All +an-s life a+ong +en is nothing b&t a battle for the ears of others.@ =y in<&iry into #&lt&ral politi#s in !o+ania folloBs the part of this battle that Bas Baged by different gro&ps in the politi#al and intelle#t&al elite, as they strove thro&gh dis#o&rse to s&ppress alternative +essages and #apt&re @#ars,@ #r&#ial to gaining the reso&r#es that Bo&ld fa#ilitate a broader hearing for their +essage. 0C&lt&ral politi#s o##&rred at +any other sites besides the elite level, s&#h as the Party-s sele#tive en#o&rage+ent or s&ppression of vari% o&s for+s of pop&lar #&lt&reL -$ these for+s do not fig&re in +y dis#&ssion, hoBever.2 *ot all h&+an spee#h is fra&ght Bith #ontention, not every Bord &ttered is politi#alL b&t in !o+ania 0and other highly #entraliIed syste+s2, the politi#iIation of #&lt&re +ade #ontention .17. pervasive. his affe#ted hoB #&lt&re Bas prod&#ed and hoB its te4ts sho&ld be read. =y investigation #on#entrates on spe#ifi# instan#es of politi#iIed #&lt&ral prod&#tion in literary #riti#is+, history, philosophy, and so#iology, s&ggesting hoB Be +ight read so+e of their te4ts. C&lt&ral politi#s o##&rs in so#ieties of all types, as Briters and s#holars for+ and refor+ the #anons that define their fields, for e4a+ple, or #reate and break rep&tations 0se#, e.g., !odden-s U1989V e4#ellent st&dy of the rep&tation of Feorge DrBell2. he s&bNe#t has been of parti#&lar interest, hoBever, to st&dents of so#ialist syste+s, for Bho+ the prin#ipal for+ of politi#s to be analyIed has generally been that betBeen intelle#t&als and the Party. =&#h of the e4tensive #orp&s on so#ialist #&lt&ral politi#s #o+es fro+ T+igrT artists and s#holars, having firsthand e4perien#e of the battle betBeen Briter and #ensor or historian and Party.-: 3ndeed, T+igrTs have been the best so&r#e of detailed infor+ation of this kind, even tho&gh their &npleasant personal e4perien#es tend to give their narratives the for+ of heroes- tales of the beleag&ered intelle#t&als defending r&th and Art fro+ assa&lt by PoBer 0e.g., Hr&by 1985L Feorges#& 1981L 1hiapentokh 198;2. =ost of these Britings give details on the relation betBeen s#holarly or other a#tivity in so+e do+ain, s&#h as history or literat&re, and @the Party,@ often presented as +onolithi#. Pro#esses e4a+ined in#l&de the p&rging or rehabilitation of one or another Briter or thinker, the @ga+e@ of #ensorship, politi#ally +otivated shifts in s&bNe#ts of resear#h or the+es in fi#tion, and so on. he best st&dies differentiate both Bithin the #o++&nity of prod&#ers 0e.g., different kinds of historians or so#iologists2 and Bithin the b&rea&#ra#y 0e.g., refor+ist vs. #onservative fa#tions2, and a#knoBledge that politi#al pro#esses ar# +ore #o+pli#ated than the%si+ple +anip&lation of #&lt&ral prod&#tion by Party leaders 0#f. H##r 19;1, 96%992. o #larify Bhat disting&ishes the present st&dy fro+ others on this topi#, 3 +ight briefly #o+pare +y approa#h Bith that of a feB e4e+plary Borks. *an#y H##r-s 019;12 book on the politi#s of 1oviet historiography/Bhi#h, despite its age, is #on#ept&ally +ore sophisti#ated than +any +ore re#ent Borks/ ad+irably ref&ses a si+ple di#hoto+y betBeen Party and s#holars and do#s not se# the latter as passive instr&+ents in Party hands. 1he insists on the #o+ple4ity both of these intera#tions and of the politi#king Bithin Party #ir#les, Bhi#h prod&#es #ontradi#tory +essages for historians and fa#ilitates str&ggles internal to the profession. 1he also vieBs historiographi# +ethods as an a#tive for#e, not si+ply the +alleable tools of a #apri#io&s poBer. H##r is less .19. helpf&l on Bhat the stakes +ight be for s#holars Bho debate ea#h other, and she tends to se# the @s#holars@ as the @good g&ys@ in the story Bitho&t

e4pli#ating ade<&ately the so#ial or +oral gro&nds &pon Bhi#h s&#h an eval&ation sho&ld rest, she takes for granted that people defending #anons of @tr&th@ or @s#ien#e@ ar# doing the right thing. 3n #ontrast, 3 do not take this for granted. 3 seek to shoB in greater detail than H##r Bhat kind of politi#al #lai+ it is to defend @tr&th@ and Bhat so#ial positions and stakes in str&ggle s&#h a #lai+ reveals. As already stated, +y partisanship of one or another gro&p do#s not rest on a&to+ati# adheren#e to @s#ien#e@ or @tr&th@ as val&es. A si+ilar bias toBard @professionalis+@ and @s#holarly val&es@ 0&ne4a+ined as #lai+s2 #hara#teriIes 1hiapentokh-s st&dy of the politi#s of 1oviet so#iology. his Bork is +ore sophisti#ated than He#r-s in its so#iology of the field of #ontenders/its treat+ent of dis#iplinary definitions and of so#iology-s birth fro+ philosophy, for e4a+ple, is parti#&larly ill&+inating 01hiapentokh 198;, 69%69, ;9%;$2. *evertheless, altho&gh 1hiapentokh +entions in passing that the develop+ent of so#iology shoBs the effe#ts of its so#ialist environ+ent, he does not e4plain Bhat it is abo&t #o++and syste+s that #reates a spe#ial environ+ent for #&lt&ral prod&#tion. he sa+e #on#ept&al absen#e appears in another of the best st&dies, Fabanyi-s 019;$2 detailed e4a+ination of relations betBeen Briters and Party in !o+ania. Fabanyi is relatively +ore ne&tral toBard the #lai+s of the parti#ipants than ar# H##r and 1hiapentokh, and like the+, she gives a n&an#ed presentation of a #o+ple4 field of #&lt&ral%politi#al intera#tionL she too, hoBever, do#s not +ake e4pli#it the nat&re of the so#ialist +ilie& or of the #o+petition taking pla#e. =y analysis differs fro+ these in proposing a +odel of the dyna+i#s of so#ialist so#iety and of their i+pli#ations for #&lt&ral prod&#tion. 3n this respe#t, it is #losest for+ally to that of )agarlitsky 019882, Bho also theoriIes the field of intelle#t&al a#tivity, &sing a +odel of so#ialis+ so+eBhat different, hoBever, fro+ +ine. he #on#ept&aliIation e+ployed by 1hafir 01987Y2, altho&gh less f&lly arti#&lated and &sing other ter+s, rese+bles +ine +ore #losely. he #lai+s 3 +ake for the present st&dy, then, are that it pla#es its e4a+ples Bithin an e4pli#it +odel of so#ialist syste+s and Bithin an e4pli#it &nderstanding of intelle#t&al a#tivity, as other treat+ents of #&lt&ral politi#s in so#ialist settings do not. =y hope is that this Bill fa#ilitate f&rther s#holarly analysis that +ight either refine the #on#ept&aliIation, Bhi#h is still ro&gh, or offer a better one. 1; . 1$.

INTELLECTUALS
=any, tho&gh not all, of those engaged in !o+ania-s #&lt&ral politi#s are persons Be +ight loosely #all @intelle#t&als.@ he operative Bord here is @loosely@L there are so +any definitions of intelle#t&als and of the related b&t distin#t ter+ @intelligentsia@ that any invo#ation of either #an hardly be +otivated by a <&est for pre#ision. 18 3ntelle#t&als and their so#ial role are a topi# of Bide interest, as s#holars 0#reating their oBn genealogies and #harters2 e4a+ine the <&est of intelle#t&als for poBer or a&tono+y, their role in pro+oting revol&tion, their prospe#ts for transfor+ing so#ialis+, their #ontrib&tions to state%b&ilding, and so on.-9 =ost s#holars Bho &se the ter+ @intelle#t&als@ #o++ent on the definitional +orass in Bhi#h it is +ired 0see, e.g., Ca+p 198$, 77%992. 3 Bo&ld #all the b&lk of definitions f&n#tional, behavioral, or s#lf%as#riptive/ that is, they define intelle#t&als as persons playing a parti#&lar role in so#iety, as advisers to or #riti#s of poBer, shapers of val&es, legiti+ators of so#ial order, g&ardians of +orality, self%appointed defenders of their nations. "or e4a+ple,

@3n every so#iety there are so#ial gro&ps Bhose spe#ial task it is to provide an interpretation of the Borld for that so#iety@ 0=annhei+ 19$$, 152. hey are defined as @livUingV for rather than off ideas@ 0Coser 19:$, viii2 or as filling o##&pations that prod&#e ideas and knoBledge 0Bry+ 1985, 162, or they @#reate, eval&ate, and analyIe trans#endental sy+bols, val&es, ideas, and interpretations@ 0Ca+p 198$, 782. "or so+e, they o&ght to be #on#erned Bith @p&rely disinterested a#tivity of the +ind@ as @offi#iants of abstra#t N&sti#e s&llied Bith no passion for a Borldly obNe#t@ 0B#nda 19:9, 99, $12. 1elf% as#riptive definitions e+phasiIe #o++&nities of ed&#ated persons &nited by @a #haris+ati# sense of #alling and a #ertain set of val&es and +anners@ 0Fella 1989, 1762L so+e s&#h definitions &nders#ore a s&bNe#tive sense of alienation fro+ and #riti#is+ of poBer as basi# to the @#alling@ of intelle#t&als. he literat&re is f&ll of &nansBered <&estions as to Bhether intelle#t&als #onstit&te a #lass, a strat&+, or a #ategoryL Bhether they ar# spokes+en for a #lass interest, and for Bhi#h oneL and Bhether in the #onte+porary era @intelle#t&als@ have been s&perseded by professionals and te#hni#ians. 3n +y vieB, Ba&+an is right to see all s&#h @trait@ and @role@ definitions as part of an e4er#ise Bhereby the persons offering the+ draB a bo&ndary betBeen the+selves and everyone else. He observes that all definitions of intelle#t&als ar# self%definitionsL their +ost i+portant .1:. property is the #reation of in% and o&t%gro&ps, a se#ond so#ial spa#e being i+pli#itly #reated by the a#t of #hara#teriIing the spa#e proper to intelle#t&als,
Ehat +ost definitions ref&se to ad+it is that the separation of the tBo spa#es 0and die legislating of a spe#ifi# relationship betBeen the+2 is the p&rpose and raison dOZtre of the definitional e4er#ise .... he spe#ifi#ally intelle#t&al for+ of the operation/self%definition/+asks its &niversal #ontent, Bhi#h is the reprod&#tion and reinfor#e+ent of a given so#ial #onfig&ration, and/Bithin it/a given 0or #lai+ed2 stat&s for the gro&p 0Ba&+an 198;:, 8/92.

"or Ba&+an, the point of @trait@ definitions and of their a##o+panying an4iety abo&t Bho is and Bho is not an intelle#t&al is to legiti+ate separate stat&s for knoBledge as a so#ietal val&e, enthroning this #entral #le+ent of intelle#t&al pra4is at the heart of so#ial s&periority 0p. 182. Eith this, he Noins so#ial theorists s&#h as "o&#a&lt, Bo&rdie&, and Elias in identifying intelle#t&als by the kinds of #lai+s and reso&r#es they e+ploy in so#ial str&ggles/#lai+s to a +onopoly on knoBledge, #o+peten#e, and tr&th 0"o&#a&lt 1985, 1682, or possession of a spe#ifi# for+ of @#apital@ 0sy+boli#, or #&lt&ral2 &pon Bhi#h their so#ial position rests 0Bo&rdie& 1988, 68$, n. 12. o invoke @#&lt&re,@ @s#ien#e,@ @tr&th,@ and related val&es, then, is a for+ of bo&ndary%+aintenan#e by Bhi#h a #ertain seg+ent of the privileged #lasses sets itself off fro+ those aro&nd it/in#l&ding 0perhaps espe#ially2 others in the elite 0#f. Elias 19;8, 1% $52. All these theorists &nderstand s&#h knoBledge #lai+s, or the legiti+ation of so#ial position thro&gh val&es of @#&lt&re,@ as bearing a relation to poBer and reprod&#ing the syste+ of do+ination, b&t they leave the nat&re of that relationship an open #W&#stion, to be ansBered differently for ea#h #ase. 6@ he present book adopts a version of this perspe#tive on intelle#t&als. 3 do not seek a pre#ise definition of Bho is in or o&t b&t in#l&de anyone Bhose so#ial pra#ti#e invokes #lai+s to knoBledge or to the #reation and +aintenan#e of #&lt&ral val&es and Bhose #lai+ is at least partly a#knoBledged by others. 61 hat is, to @be@ an intelle#t&al +eans to +ake knoBledge.val&e #lai+s, to gain so+e degree of so#ial re#ognition for the+, and to parti#ipate in so#ial relations on the basis of this e4#hange of #lai+s and re#ognition. 3f possible, 3 Bo&ld altogether avoid the ter+ @intelle#t&als@ 0Bhi#h, Bhen it does not

individ&aliIe, inaptly s&ggests a bo&nded #olle#tivity2, speaking instead of a str&#t&ral or relational spa#e. Ba&+an offers so+ething of this sort,
UEWe Bill #onfine o&r sear#h to the task of lo#ating the #ategory of the intelle#t&al Bithin the str&#t&re of the larger so#iety as a @spot,@ a @territory@ Bithin .1;. s&#h a str&#t&reL a territory inhabited by a shifting pop&lation, and open to invasions, #on<&ests and legal #lai+s as all ordinary territories ar#. Ee Bill treat the #ategory of the intelle#t&al as a str&#t&ral #le+ent Bithin the so#ietal fig&ration an ele+ent defined not by its intrinsi# <&alities, b&t by die pla#e it o##&pies Bithin the syste+ of dependen#ies Bhi#h s&#h a fig&ration represents 0Ba&+an 198;Y, 192.

"olloBing Ba&+an-s lead, 3 treat @intelle#t&als@ as so+eti+e o##&pants of a site that is privileged in for+ing and trans+itting dis#o&rses, in #onstit&ting thereby the +eans thro&gh Bhi#h so#iety is @tho&ght@ by its +e+bers, and in for+ing h&+an s&bNe#tivities. he site they o##&py is therefore part of the spa#e of ideology and legiti+ation, disting&ished fro+ other sites Bithin that spa#e by its #oordinates, re#ogniIed spe#ialist #lai+s to knoBledge or sy+boli# #apital, as opposed, for instan#e, to o##&pan#y of for+al politi#al positions. 0D##&pants of politi#al positions +ay the+selves invade the intelle#t&al @site@ Bith knoBledge #lai+s of their oBn.2 his @spa#e of legiti+ation@ does not alBays serve the e4isting syste+ of poBer b&t +ay be a lo#&s for for+ing alternative #ons#io&snesses or i+ages of so#ial reality. Dne #annot ass&+e, hoBever, that all see+ingly oppositional a#tivity Bill have this #onse<&en#e, for arg&+ent and debate often #ongeal the legiti+ating pre+ises of r&le even Bhen their parti#ipants intend otherBise 0se# #hapter :2. o #larify Bhat sorts of a#tivity take pla#e in this @spa#e of legiti+ation@ 3 +ake &se of the Britings of Pierre Bo&rdie& 0e.g., 19;;, 1989, 198$, 19882, altho&gh 3 do not i+port his #on#ept&al apparat&s Bholesale, Bith all its talk of #&lt&ral @#apital,@ sy+boli# @+arkets,@ @invest+ents,@ and @profits.@ "or Bo&rdie&, the do+ain of #&lt&re #ontains pro#esses absol&tely vital to politi#al order. Politi#al str&ggles ar# <&intessentially abo&t @the very representation of the so#ial Borld . . . UBhi#hV #an be &ttered and #onstr&#ted in different Bays@ 0Bo&rdie& 198$, ;67, ;6:2, )noBledge of the so#ial Borld and, +ore pre#isely, die #ategories that +ake it possible, are the stakes, par e4#ellen#e, of politi#al str&ggle, die ine4tri#ably theoreti#al and pra#ti#al str&ggle for the poBer to #onserve or transfor+ the so#ial Borld by #onserving or transfor+ing the #ategories thro&gh Bhi#h it is per#eived 0ibid., ;692. he so#ial reality that h&+an beings per#eive and e4perien#e, in#l&ding its relations of poBer, are #onstr&#ted thro&gh so#ial pra#ti#e. Altho&gh B%l so#ial a#tors engage in this pra#ti#e and thereby +ake so#ial +eanings #onstantly, a #entral #le+ent of orders of do+ination is that so+e .18. persons enNoy privileged a##ess to the +eans for #onstr&#ting and disse+inating a parti#&lar vieB of reality. heir privileged pla#e+ent rests on Bhat Bo&rdie& #alls @sy+boli# 0or #&lt&ral2 #apitaK--, those Bho possess +ore of it are +ore likely to have their version of reality re#ogniIed and a##epted. o give a spe#ifi# e4a+ple, a s#ientist Bho gains a professional rep&tation a##&+&lates sy+boli# #apital in the for+ of s#ientifi# a&thority, and the Beight of that a&thority +akes it +ore likely that in a s#ientifi# disp&te, his version of Bhat is happening Bill prevail over the version of so+eone la#king s&#h a&thority. 66 1i+ilarly, Briters, artists, s#holars, and so forth, a##&+&late sy+boli# #apital enabling the+ to prod&#e and i+pose #&lt&ral +eanings, Bhi#h +ay generaliIe +ore Bidely to be#o+e part of the legiti+ate vision of the so#ial Borld 0ibid., ;75%;712.

Any +obiliIation of sy+boli# #apital in s&#h disp&tes is relative, hoBever, to re#ognition of it, that is, one-s version of reality Bill not be a##epted by people Bho have not learned the distin#tions &pon Bhi#h one-s #lai+ to stat&s, or one-s a&thority, rests. his +eans that any #lai+ to #o+peten#e, to s#ientifi# a&thority, to stat&re in the #&lt&ral Borld re<&ires a #orresponding re#ognition so+eBhere else in so#iety/first by other @intelle#t&als@ a##epting or #ontesting one-s #lai+s, b&t beyond this by holders of poBer, Bho thereby a&thoriIe the vieB presented, or by others in the broader p&bli#. Bo&rdie&-s resear#h on these <&estions in "ran#e ass&+es that stable, #lass%differentiated p&bli#s al% ready e4ist, so#ialiIed into #ertain patterns of re#ognition of the entitle+ents of others. his ass&+ption is #learly Brong for East E&ropean so#ialist so#ieties, in Bhi#h a sit&ation of stably so#ialiIed gro&ps orienting to a +ore or less se#&re set of val&es Bas pre#isely Bhat the politi#al a&thorities had hoped to a#hieve b&t did not. h&s, 3 arg&e, +&#h of the #&lt&ral politi#king in so#ialist Eastern E&rope involved defending prior definitions of #&lt&ral val&e 0and gro&nds for a&thority2 that had not yet been Bholly eroded and Borking to for+ Bhat 3 #all @#ogniIant p&bli#s,@ Bho Bo&ld re#ogniIe and s&pport the val&es being defended. 0 his notion Bill be f&rther e4pli#ated in #hapter 9.2 Pro#esses of this sort are absent fro+ Bo&rdie&-s a##o&nt of the a#tivity of those holding @sy+boli# #apital@/one of several Bays in Bhi#h his ideas abo&t #&lt&re and its prod&#tion +&st be respe#ified for so#ialist so#ieties 0see #hapter 62. 1een in this light, then, intelle#t&als engage in #ontests over different definitions of #&lt&ral val&e, #o+peten#e, and a&thorityL they strive to i+pose their definitions of val&e and to gain re#ognition for their version of so#ial reality. o se# #&lt&ral politi#s in this Bay is to e+phasiIe .19. the ine4tri#able #onne#tions betBeen so#ial definitions of Bhat is val&able/a&thenti#ity, first% rate s#holarship, artisti# e4#ellen#e, Bhat have yo&/and the politi#s thro&gh Bhi#h these N&dg+ents, eval&ations, and dis#ri+inations are prod&#ed. 3t is also to e+phasiIe not <&estions of +eaning b&t <&estions of a#tion, hoB #&lt&re is an instr&+ent for so#ial a#tion be#o+es a +ore i+portant iss&e than Bhat a parti#&lar #&lt&ral te4t or perfor+an#e +eans. his set of ass&+ptions Bill be offensive to those Bho se# in the+ a red&#tion of fine sensibilities and noble +otives 0the <&est for tr&th, the #reation of the bea&tif&l2 to so+e base <&est for poBer. 67 3t is i+portant to ansBer this obNe#tion. he point of vieB e4pressed above do#s not ass&+e that &nderlying people-s atta#h+ent to val&es, their aestheti# preferen#es, their standards of s#holarly Bork, and so on is a <&est for poBer. 3t ass&+es that people @be#o+e intelle#t&als@ for any of a variety of reasons, that they +ay for+ a gen&ine atta#h+ent to #ertain val&es, preferen#es, and standards as against other ones, and that be#a&se val&es, preferen#es, and standards are +&ltiple, &nder #ertain #ir#&+stan#es one-s oBn Bill be for#ed into #o+petition Bith other standards. Altho&gh the parti#ipants perhaps do not e4perien#e their a#tivity as one of @str&ggle@ or @#o+petition,@ this is no proof that their a#tivities are not bringing alternative val&es into #o+petitive relation. he investigator-s task is to spe#ify the #ir#&+stan#es &nder Bhi#h this #o+petition Bill o##&r and the for+s it +ight take. 3t is Bholly tr&e that sin#ere atta#h+ents +ay +otivate defense of one or another standard of taste or eval&ation. *evertheless, analysis sho&ld not stop there, it +&st also re#ogniIe that knoBledge and #&lt&ral val&es play a #entral part in +aintaining and transfor+ing so#ial orders, and that defense of one or another val&e parti#ipates in this. As a

res&lt, #&lt&re and intelle#t&al a#tivity ar# inherently politi#al 0not &nderlain by politi#s, b&t interBoven Bith it2, at tBo different levels, that of their en#o&nter Bith alternative val&es Bithin their oBn sphere, and that of their pla#e in reprod&#ing so#iety.69

Methods25
"inally, a Bord abo&t the +ethods 3 e+ploy. Altho&gh this book fo#&ses on the analysis of te4ts, it does so thro&gh an anthropologi#al +ethod that s&pple+ents a reading of te4ts Bith fieldBork s&pple+ents@ is perhaps the Brong ter+, for Bhat an ethnographi# .65. approa#h to te4t&al analysis entails is a thoro&gh%going revision of the idea of reading. "ieldBork pla#es the te4ts the+selves Bithin the #onte4t of sets of so#ial relations. 3t s&bstit&tes for the relation @te4t, reader UanalystV@ a Bhole ne4&s of relations a+ong prod&#ers of te4ts/Bho are also readers for one another/and the instit&tions they inhabitL all of these also bear a relation to the Borld of the @reader W analystV,-@ as 3 shoB #learly in these pages. 3nstead of having the &nit of analysis be te4ts, then, it be#o+es the field of so#ial relations Bithin Bhi#h te4ts are generated, #ons&+ed, and #o++ented &pon in still other te4ts. he possibility of ethnographi#ally e4ploring these fields of so#ial relations #hanges the reading one +ight otherBise give the te4ts prod&#ed Bithin the+. As a +ethod, the ethnography of te4t&al prod&#tion re<&ires refor+&lating Bhat it +eans to @give a reading,@ At the sa+e ti+e, it enables &s to see +ore #learly, as in the #ase at hand, the Bays in Bhi#h te4t&aliIed dis#o&rses both #onstit&te and alter the nat&re of poBer and its e4er#ise. 1#ien#e, says Cla&de Levi%1tra&ss, do#s not #onsist of si+plifying the #o+ple4 b&t of +aking #o+ple4ity +ore intelligible Bitho&t sa#rifi#ing its #o+ple4ity 019::, 6982. Altho&gh 3 Bo&ld not Bant to #lai+ @s#ientifi#@ stat&s for the +ethod 3 e+ploy in this analysis, 3 believe it has the effe#t Levi%1tra&ss sees as desirable. *either politi#al s#ien#e nor literary analysis, Bith their #&sto+ary +ethods, reveals the #o+ple4ities that s&rfa#e Bhen an investigator #an interrogate not only Britten Borks b&t those Bho Brote the+. hese #o+ple4ities +ake +ore intelligible and +ore interesting a Borld that Bestern s#holars have +ostly +anaged to render grey and &npleasant, the @#o++&nist@ Borld. hey also ani+ate lifeless te4ts. Even if 0as in +y #ase2 the possibilities for interrogation are #onstrained/very feB people on the @indig#nist@ side of #&lt&ral arg&+ents Bo&ld +ake the+selves available for intervieBing, a li+itation that sho&ld be kept in +ind/they nonetheless per+it &s to link the real+ of the @sy+boli#@ Bith the a#tivities Bithin Bhi#h sy+bols have their so#ial life. o separate these spheres 0sy+bols, and a#tion Bithin fields of so#ial relations2 si+plifies and distorts #o+pli#ated pro#esses to Bhi#h a different +ethod do#s +ore N&sti#e.

Organization of the Book

An e+piri#al investigation based in the above ass&+ptions abo&t knoBledge, #&lt&ral val&es, and the intelle#t&al @spa#e@ .61. #o&ld, in prin#iple, #enter on any s&bNe#t in Bhi#h knoBledge or #reativity is at iss&e/s#ientifi# resear#h 0Lato&r and Eoolgar 19;92, the professions 0Abbott 19882, or history%Briting 0*ovi#k 19882, a+ong others. he present st&dy fo#&ses on intelle#t&al politi#s aro&nd the idea of !o+anian identity. his fo#&s is not idly #hosen, de#ades of intelle#t&al a#tivity in !o+ania have #entered on the idea of the nation/ defining its nat&re, Binning allies for it, gaining its independen#e, prote#ting its

interests. All of these Bere p&rs&ed thro&gh the #reation of philosophies, histories, literat&res, +&si#s, ethnographies, even biologies and geographies s&itable for an a&thenti# and val&able !o+anian being%in%the%Borld. "or #ent&ries, +&#h of !o+anian politi#s has been #ond&#ted pre#isely thro&gh representing !o+anian identity. !epresentations of !o+anianness Bere si+&ltaneo&sly prod&#ts of #&lt&ral striving and +eans of politi#s, ele+ents of a relation to the peoples both Bithin and beyond !o+ania-s borders. o be a prod&#er of #&lt&re, in !o+ania, to be an intelle#t&al, has long +eant having a #entral role in defining the !o+anian nation to itself and to the Borld. 1&bse<&ent #hapters shoB so+e of the Bays in Bhi#h this o##&rred in re#ent ti+es. he first three #hapters give the histori#al, theoreti#al, and politi#al #onte4t for the arg&+ents dis#&ssed in #hapters 9 to ;. 3 begin Bith an overvieB of the politi#s of identity prior to Eorld Ear 33, an overvieB ne#essary to &nderstanding the +eanings and #lai+s evident in str&ggles of the 19;5s and 1985s. 3n addition to this, #hapter 1 shoBs that spe#ifi#ally in the real+ of s#holarship and letters, arg&+ents abo&t national identity Bere instr&+ental in for+ing an instit&tional infrastr&#t&re b&ilt on @the nation.@ his fa#t had i+portant #onse<&en#es for both intelle#t&al life and the national dis#o&rse on#e the Co++&nist party #a+e to poBer. Chapter 6 provides a theoreti#al dis#&ssion of the nat&re of so#ialist syste+s and the pla#e of intelle#t&al a#tivity in the+. his dis#&ssion +ight have fallen in the 3ntrod&#tion, b&t its length and its stronger relation to the +aterial in #hapters 7 thro&gh ; s&ggested separating it fro+ the #on#ept&al iss&es 3 have raised here. 3n #hapter 7 3 des#ribe hoB the Party initially so&ght to s&ppress the entire s&bNe#t of @the nation,@ Bhi#h nonetheless insistently reasserted itself in hidden arenas and at length reappeared Bithin p&bli# dis#o&rse. "olloBing these three #hapters are fo&r others on #&lt&ral politi#s in !o+ania &nder Cea&Mes#&. Ea#h of the+ fo#&ses on a different do+ain of #&lt&ral life and s&ggests different aspe#ts of the reprod&#tion of national ideology. Chapter 9 provides a sort of dyna+i# glossary for so+e or the ter+s e+ployed in arg&+ents Bithin #&lt&ral politi#s, and it .66. des#ribes a feB te#hni<&es thro&gh Bhi#h !o+anian intelle#t&als so&ght to b&ild &p their oBn #&lt&ral a&thority and &nder+ine that of others. Unlike #hapters $ to ;, this one do#s not revolve aro&nd a #entral debate and do#s not e4plain the organiIation of the #ontests Bhose +eans of str&ggle it des#ribesL the f&ll signifi#an#e of its e4a+ples Bill be #lear only after s&bse<&ent #hapters, the e4position of Bhi#h it is intended to s+ooth. he +ore i+portant b&rden of #hapter 9 is to raise the <&estion of hoB =ar4is+ Bas related to the national dis#o&rse. 3t asks, hoB Bas a dis#o&rse that nearly all !o+anians per#eived as alien bro&ght into relation Bith the native dis#o&rse on nationality, so highly developed prior to the installation of a =ar4ist%Leninist regi+eK 3 des#ribe hoB the &nifi#ation of these tBo dis#o&rses and the s&bordination of one to the other pro#eeded thro&gh #onfli#ts in Bhi#h opponents strove to e4#o++&ni#ate ea#h other and deny one another a##ess to politi#al favor. 3n #hapter $,1 shoB these fa#tional str&ggles for re#ognition and for a##ess to b&rea&#rati# reso&r#es in greater detail, as they appeared thro&gh an innovation in the sphere of literary #riti#is+. Persons differently sit&ated in the #o++&nity of literary #riti#is+ tried to o&tdo ea#h other in #lai+ing that their version of !o+anian identity Bas +ore representative of the val&es on Bhi#h the nation-s #&lt&ral life sho&ld be fo&nded. Literat&re proved a #o+pli#ated do+ain for the Party to #ontrol, for it sits atop an i++ense reserve of prior

sy+boli# a##&+&lations, arg&ably the largest of any area of #&lt&reL the destr&#tion and reappropriation of those val&es Bas a #o+ple4 pro#ess into Bhi#h 3 hope to provide so+e insight. Chapter : shoBs an intelle#t&al debate in historiography, a field even #loser to the heart of the Party leadership than literat&re. DBing to its ideologi#al #entrality, it Bas so+eBhat +ore s&bNe#t to dire#t politi#al #ontrol and at the sa+e ti+e less infl&en#ed than literat&re Bas by +arket for#es. hese differen#es +ade #o+petition a+ong individ&als, Bhi#h 3 e+phasiIe in #hapter $, so+eBhat less i+portant than #o+petition betBeen instit&tions. Altho&gh the dis#&ssion #enters on a debate betBeen tBo persons, it &ses this to e4plore relations betBeen instit&tional sites for prod&#ing history and betBeen history% prod&#ers and Party #ontrol. 3 arg&e that the debate strengthened national ideology, even tho&gh so+e parti#ipants believed they Bere opposing the #enter, b&t 3 also s&ggest Bays in Bhi#h opposition a+ong historians served to di+inish #entral #ontrol. .67. Chapter ; looks at a develop+ent Bithin a #orner of philosophy, a dis#ipline on#e #entral to the Party-s legiti+ation b&t s&bse<&ently less so. Ehereas literat&re had a Bide a&dien#e, and history/depending on hoB it Bas Britten/ an only slightly narroBer one, the a&dien#e for philosophy Bas potentially the narroBest of all, and its prior a##&+&lations Bere s+aller than those of the other tBo do+ains. 3n this <&iet sphere, hoBever, 3 find the highest potential for an alternative vision of reality, one that raised a #hallenge to the Party leadership and gained the adheren#e of so+e in the +ore poBerf&l literary #o++&nity. he #hapter atte+pts to shoB hoB this opposition #onstit&ted itself dis#&rsively and so&ght to bring its +essage to a Bider p&bli#. 3n all the do+ains #onsidered, +&#h +ore Bas going on than disp&tes in Bhi#h national identity and its definitions Bere i+pli#ated. Cet in +y opinion, by pla#ing the +atter of identity at the #enter and seeking to &nderstand the arg&+ents that developed aro&nd and thro&gh it, 3 believe Be have an espe#ially fr&itf&l vantage point for &nderstanding the relation of #&lt&re to poBer in so#ialist !o+ania, thro&gh the ideologi#al #onstit&tion of identity and its &se in intelle#t&al #ontests.

CHAP E! D*E Antecedents: National Ideology and Cultural Politics in Presocialist Romania 6;
here is no first or last dis#o&rse, and dialogi#al #onte4t knoBs no li+its.... Even past +eanings, that is those that have arisen in the dialog&e of past #ent&ries, #an never be stable 0#o+pleted oBe and for all, finished2, they Bill alBays #hange 0reneBing the+selves2 in the #o&rse of the dialog&e-s s&bse<&ent develop+ent, and yet to #o+e. At every +o+ent of the dialog&e, there are i++ense and &nli+ited +asses of forgotten +eanings, b&t, in so+e s&bse<&ent +o+ents, as the dialog&e +oves forBard, they Bill ret&rn to +e+ory and live in reneBed for+ 0in a neB #onte4t2. *othing is absol&tely dead, every +eaning Bill #elebrate its rebirth. /=ikhail Bakhtin

*ational identity as an ele+ent in !o+anian #&lt&ral politi#s, the s&bNe#t of this book, did not #o+e into being Bith so#ialis+ b&t has a long history, stret#hing ba#k to at least the +id%1;55s. 3n the present #hapter- 3 o&tline that history, Bhose the+es and personages ar# essential to &nderstanding !o+anian #&lt&ral politi#s in the 19;5s and 1985s. Be#a&se the +ost i+portant #onte4t of the present is the series of debates on !o+anian identity d&ring the period betBeen .68. the tBo Eorld Ears, 3 #on#entrate on that period, Bith briefer treat+ent of Bhat pre#eded it.6 3 insist at s&#h length on this history be#a&se 3 believe +y the+e #annot be addressed properly Bitho&t it/and in this 3 depart fro+ other st&dies of intelle#t&al life &nder so#ialis+. he national ideology so often evident in #&lt&ral politi#s Bas histori#ally prod&#edL its history infor+s its present. he sy+bols that provoked heated arg&+ent in the 1985s/sy+bols that in#l&de Briters and thinkers of earlier ti+es/ draB &pon +&ltiple signifi#an#es established by the &se or the a#tions of s&#h sy+bols in the past. Dne #an best se# hoB these +&ltiple +eanings have sedi+ented by e4a+ining debates in Bhi#h different sides to an arg&+ent attrib&te #ontrasting val&es to an idea or a person-s Bork. 3nterBar !o+anian philosopher L&#ian Blaga, for e4a+ple, Bas the obNe#t of atta#k and defense even as his books appeared 0e.g., B[n#il[ 197;L 1taniloae 1996L 1tahl 197;, 19782, and he #ontin&ed to be thro&gho&t the 1985s, Bithin ter+s partly indebted to the interBar years in Bhi#h he Brote 0see =ih& 1988\L B&gnari& n.d.L and #hapter 92. he ongoing relevan#e of interBar fig&res like Blaga is evident in the spa#e given over to the+ in 1985s p&bli#ations and se+inars, in the n&+ber of Borks fro+ the interBar period rep&blished in the 19;5s and 1985s, and in anthologies of the debates on identity that span the divide betBeen so#ialist and preso#ialist ti+es 0e.g., B&#&r et al. 1989L =ar##a 19;$L ". =ih[iles#& 19812. =any of the arg&+ents #on#erning national identity Bere spe#ialist +atters in literat&re and the h&+anities, Bhat sort of novel is the best, sho&ld aestheti# #riteria be independent of so#ial #on#erns or e+bra#e the+, hoB #an !o+anian #&lt&ral prod&#ts enter international #&lt&ral #ir#&its, Bhat is the stat&s of folk #&lt&re and hoB sho&ld it be preserved, and so forth. hey had i+pli#ations, hoBever/Bhi#h indeed often +otivated the+/for e#ono+y and politi#s. 0Ehat began as a literary +ove+ent, for instan#e, be#a+e the Peasant partyL se# !oberts 19$1, 89.2 *oBhere is this +ore visible than in arg&+ents abo&t the so%#alled @national essen#e@ of !o+anians as a people. 7 hese arg&+ents arose Bith the nineteenth%#ent&ry !o+anti#s and #ontin&ed, Bith +odifi#ations, into the interBar period, res&rfa#ing on#e again as of the 19:5s.

By in#essantly probing the <&estion of !o+anians- tr&e nat&re, #ontrib&tors to the pool of Britings that +ade &p these debates prod&#ed and reprod&#ed a +aNor ele+ent in the national ideology. he people Bho arg&ed abo&t national identity did so in a +&lti%dis#iplinary field of dis#o&rse that overlapped Bith talk on other the+es, .69. on the nat&re of the state, the parlo&s sit&ation of politi#s, the role of religion in the life of the people, the #lass #o+position of !o+ania, the history of its e#ono+i# ba#kBardness, and, above all, the proper #o&rse of develop+ent !o+ania sho&ld folloB/a path toBard ind&strialiIation and parlia+entary de+o#ra#y, or so+ething else. hese arg&+ents Bere not Bell ins&lated fro+ one another. As an anthology of the 1985s p&t it, @ he str&ggles a+ong literary ideas are also str&ggles Bith so#ial and politi#al i+pli#ations@ 0B&#&r et al. 1989, 92.9 "or e4a+ple, one Briter Bho opened the <&estion of !o+ania-s #lass str&#t&re fo&nd hi+self a##&sed of destroying the *ation *] 0a #harge he had invited by #lai+ing that the &pper #lass had @sold o&t@ the +asses and abandoned their national interestsL see [sl[&an& 1958a and bL Popovi#i 1958a and b2. 1i+ilar for+&lations s&rfa#ed in dis#&ssing the nat&re of the !o+anian state. Proposals for and against refor+ of the #o&ntryside Bere tied &p Bith definitions of the peasantry as the repository of the national spirit. !eligion, too, overfloBed into debates on the national essen#e, as #ertain parti#ipants held that Eastern Drthodo4y Bas basi# to the so&l and essen#e of the !o+anian people. And Briters defended or de#ried politi#al progra+s for develop+ent a##ording to Bhether they en#o&raged or violated the f&nda+ental #hara#ter of !o+anians. Partisans of a peasant%based, ahistori#al national essen#e obNe#ted stren&o&sly, for instan#e, to proposals for ind&strialiIing !o+ania. he overlap a+ong these do+ains shoBs the politi#al signifi#an#e of debates on national identity and N&stifies e4a+ining s&#h debates, even if 3 #annot #over f&lly their politi#al and e#ono+i# #onte4t. *ot only did positions in the debates entail pres#riptions for politi#s, not only did they establish a lang&age of politi#al arg&+ent, b&t the entire field of dis#o&rse, Bith its overlapping do+ains of @state,@ @develop+ent,-@ @religion,@ and so forth, #ontin&ally #reated and re#reated the *ation in relationship to those other ele+ents. hese Bere not, then, @+erely@ intelle#t&al arg&+ents, they for+ed the rhetori# and laid doBn the pre+ises of politi#al dis#o&rse. hey reprod&#ed a hege+oni# ideology + Bhi#h the *ation o##&pied a #entral pla#e. he present #hapter pres&+es so+ething that does not yet e4ist, a so#iohistori#al analysis of the for+ation of !o+ania-s national ideology. =y broader goals in this book li+it +e to offering here only a frag+ent of s&#h a history, fitted to +y investigation of the politi#s of identity in Cea&Mes#&-s !o+ania. 3 rarely seek to e4plain Bhy parti#&lar .75. kinds of persons took parti#&lar stan#es toBard defining !o+anian identity, even tho&gh 3 a+ #onvin#ed that alternative i+ages of !o+anianness ar# syste+ati#ally linked to politi#al #hoi#es and so#ial positions, rather than refle#ting #onf&sion abo&t identity. 3 begin Bith a brief history of the #entral i+ages defining !o+anian identity in the seventeenth thro&gh nineteenth #ent&ries, +ove on to so+e of the debates of the tBentieth #ent&ry, and #on#l&de by s&ggesting hoB, thro&gh these arg&+ents, so#ial a#tors affe#ted the balan#e of so#ial for#es and transfor+ed instit&tional str&#t&res.
]

he &pper%#ase * 0*ation2 is e4plained in note 7.

Seventeenth through Nineteenth Centuries

he #onte4t of early efforts by !o+anians to define their national identity Bas the fier#e #o+petition for e+pire%b&ilding a+ong the Habsb&rgs, !o+anovs, and Dtto+ans 0se# =#*eill 19:92. Ea#h e+pire bordered one of the three regions/ ransylvania and the Prin#ipalities of =oldavia and Ealla#hia/that Bere event&ally Noined to for+ #onte+porary !o+ania. heir #o+petition drove the+ #olle#tively to #entraliIe and #onsolidate their r&le 0a proNe#t that in the Habsb&rg #ase entailed atte+pting religio&s ho+ogeniIation2 in hopes of prevailing over the other tBo e+pires in the so&theast E&ropean b&ffer Ione. he i+pet&s to #entraliIe #&l+inated in one or another eighteenth%#ent&ry @enlightened absol&tis+.@ 3n all three !o+anian lands, agents of an e4ternal i+perial poBer Borked to #entraliIe i+perial r&le, th&s &nder+ining provin#ial nobilities. he res&lt differed in the Dtto+an and the Habsb&rg dependen#ies, in the for+er, a !o+anian nobility lost poBer to agents of the Dtto+an s&ltan 0knoBn as @Phanariots@2, Bhereas in +&ltiethni# ransylvania, Habsb&rg #entraliIation &nder+ined a nobility that Bas H&ngarian, thereby favoring the rise of a neB elite a+ong the !o+anians 0see (erdery 1987, 117/1672. 3n the fate of the !o+anian lands one #o&ld see the progress of inter%i+perial rivalries as the Dtto+ans lost ransylvania to the Habsb&rgs and the Prin#ipalities entered a !&ssian orbit 0tho&gh for+ally &nder &rkish r&le &ntil 18;;.18;82. Cet +any #hanges of fort&ne interr&pted this se#&lar trend. 'espite s&bstantial differen#es in their environ+ents, !o+anian elites in the three regions Bere #hallenged in si+ilar Bays and responded si+ilarly also, they appealed to or allied the+selves Bith stronger e4ternal poBers against their tyranni#al .71. overlords. his often involved siding Bith one of the three #ontending e+pires against another, a strategy p&rs&ed by ea#h region-s elite as a Bhole or, so+eti+es, by one fra#tion of it against another. !epresentations of !o+anianness #a+e to play an i+portant part in these allian#es.

HOW ROMANIAN IDENTITY WAS REPRESENTED: THE QUESTION OF ORIGINS

"ro+ the o&tset, !o+anian elites #o&#hed their appeals for assistan#e in ter+s of an i+age of the+selves that Bas rooted in the past. 5: his established at the very beginning that !o+anian identity Bas to be linked Bith history as a field of knoBledge and Bith histori#al tr&th as a site of representations for p&rs&ing the tr&th abo&t the *ation 0#f. "o&#a&lt 19;;, 1972, &nderstood as a <&estion of origins. A highly spe#&lative <&estion, this +atter has been disp&ted and revised #ontin&ally for #ent&ries, Bith opinions falling into three +ain #a+ps. Dne, the @Latinist@ #a+p, arg&es that !o+anians are the lineal des#endants of the legions of !o+an E+peror raNan and of #olonists he bro&ght fro+ !o+e, after he #on<&ered the area 015$%15: A. '.2 and in#orporated it into his e+pire as the provin#e of 'a#ia. A se#ond, the @'a#ianist@ #a+p, holds in its +ost e4tre+e version that !o+anians ar# des#endants of the original inhabitants 0knoBn as the 'a#ians2, Bho adopted the Latin lang&age and so+e ele+ents of !o+an #iviliIation b&t otherBise trans+itted their oBn #&sto+s and bloodline doBn into the present. he third, @'a#o%!o+an,@ vieB/the one +ost Bidely held in the tBentieth #ent&ry/regards !o+anians as the des#endants of inter+ingled !o+an #olonists and s&rvivors of the 'a#ian indi% genes. 1o+e @da#ianiIing@ variants of this vieB pla#e greater Beight on 'a#ian an#estry Bitho&t, hoBever, denying the !o+an #le+ent. he three vieBs ar#

sit&ated, as is #lear, betBeen pro%Besternis+ and indigenis+, Bith no one offering a p&rely eastern an#estry.; he <&estion of origins prod&#ed the first and perhaps +ost d&rable representation of !o+anian identity that had openly politi#al intentions, early Latinis+. 3ts a&thors, and the forer&nners of Bhat e+erged d&ring the eighteenth #ent&ry as the dis#o&rse on !o+anian national identity, Bere a handf&l of seventeenth%#ent&ry Briters knoBn as the Chroni#lers 0#roni#ari2X atta#hed to one or another noble fa#tion in the #o&rts of the =oldavian and Ealla#hian prin#es 0DRetea et al. 19:9, 686%689, $95%$912. 3t Bas the Chroni#lers fro+ =oldavia,@ Briting in a provin#e +ore and +ore heavily b&rdened by trib&te to the .76. Dtto+ans, Bho provided the first Latinist arg&+ent. 1eeking to +ake their people knoBn to E&ropeans @+isled by #al&+nies fro+ abroad,@9 as they #lai+ed, these early historians &rged E&ropeans to shoB proper reveren#e for their oBn !o+an an#estors by #o+ing to the res#&e of raNan-s !o+anian heirs. he arg&+ent for !o+an or predo+inantly !o+an origins +eant for the+ not N&st an i+age of !o+anians as bold, #o&rageo&s, #&lt&red, free, and so forth, it +eant a #lai+ &pon the at% tention and interest of @E&rope,@ to help liberate the sons of !o+e fro+ &rkish or H&ngarian or A&strian oppression. hese sa+e asso#iations Bere to +otivate the Latinis+ of later Briters, in#l&ding the Bo&ld%b# fo&nders of a !o+anian state in the 1895s and 18$5s. he Britings of the Chroni#lers infl&en#ed a +&#h +ore e4tensive <&est into the +atter of origins, a <&est that again had politi#al ai+s and prod&#ed a +aNor representation of !o+anian identity. his Bas the effort of ransylvanian #leri#s15 0the @ ransylvanian 1#hool@2 to se#&re politi#al gains for ransylvania-s !o+anians, Bho la#ked basi# rights Bithin an aristo#rati# order do+inated by H&ngarians and Fer+ans 0se# (erdery 1987, ;9%16$2. heir arg&+ent Bas that !o+anians too Bere of noble stat&s by virt&e of their des#ent fro+ !o+e. By #lai+ing nobility 0and the glory of #on<&est2 in an e+pire itself des#ended fro+ the Holy !o+an E+pire, these #leri#s hoped to Bin the sa+e rights enNoyed by other nobles.@ heir Latinist arg&+ent gained overBhel+ing b&t not &niversal a##eptan#e a+ong !o+anians. Dne voi#e that resisted it Bas part of a larger resistan#e by the !o+anian Drthodo4 pop&lation against the Habsb&rg efforts to &nify the e+pire by #atholi#iIing ransylvania, via the Freek%Catholi# or Uniate Ch&r#h 0#reated 1:992 to Bhi#h the @ ransylvanian 1#hool@ belonged. "or every effort by ransylvania-s Uniate priests to gain Habsb&rg s&pport and assistan#e, Drthodo4 !o+anians Bere likely to soli#it s&pport fro+ the CIar, the 1erbian Drthodo4 hierar#hy, or the Drthodo4 in the Prin#ipalities 0Blaga 19::, $$2. 3n the early 1;:5s, one of several anti%Uniate &prisings of Drthodo4 peasants reportedly #&l+inated in a letter to H&ngarian a&thorities, its signers averring that !o+anians ar# older than H&ngarians in the region @for Be ar# the des#endants of the old 'a#ians@ 0Prodan 19;1, 6162. hose str&ggling to oppose the in#&rsions of the @!o+an@ faith did not, it see+s, find a !o+an origin Bholly #onvenient. 03t later be#a+e &sef&l, hoBever, on#e aggression began fro+ an e4pansionist Drthodo4 !&ssia, to e+phasiIe the !o+an rather than ByIantine .77. so&r#es of !o+anian Christianity so as to &nders#ore differen#es fro+ the EastL se# >&b 1981, 9$.2 his e4a+ple shoBs hoB gro&ps Bithin the e+erging !o+anian national +ove+ent sele#ted different e+phases in defining !o+anian identity, those Bho Bished to &se the instit&tions held o&t by the Habsb&rg ##ntraliI#rs to&ted

a !o+an 0therefore Bestern2 !o+anian, Bhereas those +ore fir+ly rooted in the instit&tions of the Drthodo4 faith dis#overed a !o+anian of +i4ed or even indigeno&s #hara#ter. he split neatly represents the #o+petition for !o+anian territory on the part of Bestern 0A&strian2 and eastern 0!&ssian2 e+pires, both of Bhi#h +ight be invited to resolve disp&tes a+ong ransylvania-s inhabitants. 1i+ilar defe#tion fro+ the Latinist position on origins #a+e fro+ so+e elites in the tBo Prin#ipalities. heir #hief #on#ern Bas not to gain e<&al rights Bith other gro&ps b&t to a#hieve independent r&le, Bhi#h Bo&ld ret&rn to the+ the privileged a##ess to high offi#e that they had lost Bith Dtto+an absol&tis+. oBard this end, they too fo&nd, nevertheless, that the proper origins #o&ld help N&stify their right to independen#e. 1o+e leaders arg&ed for this right as des#endants of the !o+an +asters of the Borld, and espe#ially in the 1855s, the #o++on Latin origin of all !o+anians Bas seen as an i+portant Beapon in the fight for politi#al &nifi#ation 0Feorges#& 19;1, 1;12. B&t a feB others pre% ferred to e+phasiIe the 'a#ian an#estry, a preferen#e Feorges#& links to the alienness of the !o+ans, foreigners Bho had #o+e fro+ abroad to s&bN&gate die indigenes and Bho sho&ld be given no <&arter. 'a#ian an#estry had the f&rther advantage of p&shing a @!o+anian@ presen#e ba#k another +illenni&+ in ti+e and of i+plying a larger territory than the !o+an 'a#ia of raNan 0ibid., 1:$, 1;62.16 Altho&gh it Bo&ld be +isleading to present 'a#ian i+agery as a +aNor alternative to Latinis+ at this point in !o+anian history, it is i+portant to register the appearan#e of a #o&nteri+age to Latinis+, for s&bse<&ent politi#al arg&+ent Bo&ld invoke noB one, noB the other of the tBo possible an#estors. he differen#e betBeen the vieBs of these !o+anian elites, one vieB asso#iated Bith pro%Bestern gro&ps, the other Bith @indigenist@ ones, loosely represents at this point a regional division betBeen the 0E&ropean2 Habsb&rg dependen#y and the 0Driental2 &rkish one, Bith their divergent politi#al e4igen#ies, seeking a pla#e Bithin the e4isting syste+ of r&le vers&s e4pli#itly reNe#ting foreign r&le so as to reestablish native #ontrol over the +a#hinery of state. B&t even Bithin this latter .79. sit&ation, by the +id%1855s fa#tions Bithin the elite reg&larly #o&#hed their politi#al strategies in ter+s of divergent referen#es to 1ignifi#ant Dthers/Besterners, indigenes, or easterners17/ neatly #apt&red by histori#al arg&+ents abo&t origin. his established the pattern Bherein talk abo&t national identity Bas the idio+ for intra%elite str&ggles over a##ess to poBer 0Bith a##&sations of @foreignness@ serving as the &lti+ate dis<&alifi#ation for r&le2, indi#ating allian#es Bith gro&ps o&tside. And thro&gh the +edi&+ of s&#h talk, these str&ggles/despite the differing environ+ents in Bhi#h they o##&rred/+ade the *ation a reality. he ne4t step Bas to #reate a state Bithin Bhi#h this *ation Bo&ld live.

STATE FORMATION AND WESTERNISM

3n the nineteenth #ent&ry, the fates of ransylvania and the tBo Prin#ipalities diverged sharply. he Prin#ipalities, on the one hand, a#hieved independent statehood as the !o+anian )ingdo+ 018812, having first &nited into a single politi#al entity 018$92 Bithin the Dtto+an e+pire. he gro&ps internally responsible for these o&t#o+es Bere the large and s+aller nobility and the developing @bo&rgeoisie@ 0Bith their loosely asso#iated intelligentsia2, Bho had re#overed the e4er#ise of lo#al r&le fro+ the 1&ltan-s Phanariots in 1861. After this date, feB non%!o+anians o##&pied positions of politi#al i+portan#e in the Prin#ipalitiesL only in the li+ited #o++er#ial and trading se#tors did one find a

signifi#ant n&+ber of SeBs and other @aliens.@ his #ontrasted Bith the sit&ation in ransylvania, Bhere the !o+anian elite of b&siness+en and intelle#t&als 0#hiefly laByers, tea#hers, and #lergy2 re+ained politi#ally s&bNe#t to lo#al r&le by H&ngarians and Habsb&rgs. Ehile elites in the Prin#ipalities Bere beginning to r&n their oBn affairs, ransylvanian !o+anians #ontin&ed to plead vainly for politi#al rights Bithin a Habsb&rg and, after the A&stro% H&ngarian #o+pro+ise of 18:;, a H&ngarian ransylvania. his politi#al str&ggle #ons&+ed their energies and bore little fr&it &ntil 1918. A#<&iring their oBn state Bas a +aNor boon to elites in the Prin#ipalities, for Bitho&t it +any Bo&ld have had no livelihood. '&ring the +id%1855s, high Bestern de+and had +ade East E&ropean grain far+ing &n#o++only prospero&s. Pri#es of !o+anian #ereals had shot &pBard d&ring these years, bringing hefty in#o+es to oBners of large estates. 1ons had been sent abroad to s#hool 0there being no advan#ed .7$. ed&#ation in their ho+eland2, Bhen#e they had ret&rned to translate the de+ands of Bestern bo&rgeoisies for freedo+, e<&al representation, and so forth, into a lang&age s&ited to their oBn lands, #alls for eli+inating distin#tions Bithin the elite, for &niting to for+ a national state, and for freeing it fro+ #ontrol by foreigners. 1#ar#ely had the fo&ndations of the neB state been laid than the grain +arket #ollapsed, bringing r&in to so+e and hard ti+es to +any, Bho so&ght shelter in the state b&rea&#ra#y. his prod&#ed intense #o+petition for reven&e%bearing politi#al offi#e and for e4panding the b&rea&#rati# opport&nities that pro+ised +ore than did the +arket.19 he Binning of independen#e in 18;;.18;8 #oin#ided, then, Bith the as#endan#y of a !o+anian state apparat&s over +arket%based e#ono+i# #hangeL1$ hen#eforth, in !o+ania as elseBhere in Eastern E&rope, the state 0and its o##&pants2 Bo&ld e4er#ise a strong hand in dire#ting e#ono+i# groBth,1: and arg&+ents abo&t die dire#tion of s&#h groBth Bo&ld be#o+e integral to politi#al dis#o&rse. he pro#ess Bhereby !o+anians #reated a state and a#hieved independen#e involved even +ore resol&te +anip&lation of allies in @E&rope--- than before and even +ore deter+ined representations of !o+anians- Bestern nat&re. History% Briting #ontin&ed to bear the b&rden of this, the Briters of history having learned firsthand fro+ s&#h "ren#h thinkers as =i#helet and J&inet hoB a nation-s identity sho&ld look and hoB its history sho&ld be Britten 0see Cristian 198$L '&randin 1989, 89%1$72.@ hat a foreign a&dien#e Bas intended for +any of their histori#al arg&+ents is obvio&s, sin#e several +aNor Borks Bere first p&blished in "ren#h or Fer+an. B&t representations of !o+anian%ness Bent beyond history%Briting into everyday politi#al dis#o&rse, as in the folloBing state+ent fro+ politi#ian and historian )og[lni#ean&, an ar#hite#t of the !o+anian state and a +anip&lator of !o+ania-s Bestern identity,
E&rope gives its sy+pathies and s&pport only to #o&ntries that aspire to align their instit&tions Bith those of the #iviliIed Borld. . . . U Vo shoB E&rope o&r desire to #&ropeaniIe o&r #o&ntry Bill be to attra#t the sy+pathies and s&pport of the Freat PoBers and of foreign p&bli# opinion 0)ogalni#ean& 1995, 68;2.-8

he #&l+ination of pro%Bestern state+ents #a+e in 18$9, Bhen the Latin alphabet offi#ially repla#ed Cyrilli# #hara#ters for Briting the !o+anian lang&age and a +assive #a+paign Bas beg&n to @restore@ lapsed Latinis+s into !o+anian. .78. E+&lation of E&ropean so#ial, politi#al, and #&lt&ral for+s prod&#ed a ba#klash, hoBever, as so+e !o+anians derided the aping of foreign +anners and #riti#iIed resort to foreign sol&tions. As had o##&rred in Dtto+an ti+es, politi#al arg&+entation often invoked patriotis+ vers&s foreignness, Bith #riti#s

of the @+oderniIers@ a##&sing the+ of betraying !o+ania-s &ni<&eness, Bhereas the pro%Bestern fa#tion defended itself as serving the #o&ntry-s best interests. hey Bere as <&i#k to label the Conservative landoBners r&ssophile as the latter Bere to label the+ fran#ophile. Eith this, Be see #ontin&ed the earlier pra#ti#e by Bhi#h gro&ps for+ allian#es a#ross the #o&ntry-s borders and a##&se ea#h other of destroying the *ation thro&gh s&#h allian#es.

ROMANTICISM, DACIANISM, AND THE "NATIONAL ESSENCE"19

Altho&gh LatiniIers had played the pree+inent role in the !o+anian &pheavals of 1898 and in fo&nding the !o+anian state, alternative representations in#reased in fre<&en#y and in for#e thereafter. he 'a#ians in the !o+anian past Bere to a#<&ire ever +ore n&+ero&s enth&siasts as the #ent&ry progressed, #&l+inating in the Bork of B. P. Hasde&, the @father@ of s#ientifi# folklore in !o+ania. By the t&rn of the #ent&ry, Hasde&-s infl&en#e bro&ght general a##eptan#e of the 'a#o%!o+an position on origins, Bidely held ever sin#e, altho&gh to re#tify earlier overe+phasis on the !o+ans, Hasde& hi+self pro+oted greater attention to the 'a#ians Bithin the +i4. 3t is to this neB e+phasis on 'a#ians 0i.e., not e4#l&sive of !o+ans2 that 3 refer in the folloBing paragraphs. Bab&%B&Inea observes 019;9, 82 that be#a&se +ilitant 'a#ianis+ Bas +ore obvio&sly &sef&l inside the !o+anian polity than for a&dien#es abroad, the theory +ade greater headBay on#e the #reation of a !o+anian state had di+inished the need to gain E&ropean s&pport for independen#e. *onetheless, the 'a#ians had politi#al +eanings that Bere &sef&l on the international stage as Bell as the internal one. o begin Bith, in#orporating the+ into the lineage +eant bringing in a people Bho represented a spirited opposition to i+perial e4pansion, a fight%to%the%death for liberty against e4ternal #on<&est 0the 'a#ian r&ler, 'e#ebal, being believed to have dr&nk poison rather than fall into raNan-s hands alive2. Unlike Latinis+, 'a#ianis+ +eant independen#e in politi#s, for pre%!o+an 'a#ia had been poBerf&l Bithin its region .7;. and had even e4a#ted trib&te for a ti+e fro+ !o+e. !eb&king the Latinist allegian#es that Bo&ld per+it !o+ania to be eng&lfed by "ren#h interests, one #o++entator observed that sin#e the 'a#ians Bere not !&ssians or A&strians, !&ssia and A&stria Bo&ld have no #lai+ to the+ 0ibid., ;;^.B "or a p&bli# long e4er#ised by the rigors of foreign do+ination, this Bas heady st&ff. o e+phasiIe 'a#ia also strengthened !o+anian #lai+s to #ontin&ity on the territory they inhabited, as against so+e A&strian and H&ngarian theories of the !o+anian past, for it Bas tho&ght that half%'a#ian !o+anians Bo&ld be less likely to abandon their ho+eland d&ring the BithdraBal of !o+an legions in 6;1. his enabled a @s#ientifi#@ #o&nterarg&+ent to H&ngarians, Bho #lai+ed that the territory of ransylvania had been e+pty of inhabitants Bhen the H&ngarian no+ads entered it in 89: and that ransylvania therefore belonged to H&ngary. A 'a#ian ba#kgro&nd +eant deeper roots 0>&b 1981, 1$92, +ore an#ient rights in the region, than did a p&rely Latin origin. =ore% over, it #onstit&ted a poBerf&l arg&+ent in favor of &niting the three !o+anian lands Bithin a neB state that Bo&ld res&rre#t the old 'a#ian polity Bithin its proper borders, a goal for Bhi#h even so+e in#orrigible ransylvanian Latinists fo&nd 'a#ia a #onvenient sy+bol 0ibid., 1$52. Co&pled Bith !o+anti# theories that a people-s inner nat&re is deter+ined by the soil on Bhi#h it is for+ed, the 'a#ian e+phasis #hartered a @+anifest destiny@ for restoring to !o+anians all the soil of 'a#o%!o+an #ohabitation. Dne s#holar ens&red foreign re#ognition

of this point by p&blishing, in "ren#h, his opographi# de la!o&+anie/on the eve of the Paris Conferen#e that Bo&ld de#ide the politi#al fate of the Prin#ipalities/Briting e4pli#itly of the 'a#ian E+pire-s territorial e4tent and of its people as @free +en, or barbarians, as the !o+ans #alled the+.@ 03n th&s appealing to the Bestern des#endants of !o+e, hoBever, he Bas #aref&l to e+phasiIe that !o+anians had !o+an fore%bears as Bell Uibid., ;6%;9.2 Beyond representing politi#al obNe#tives and thereby +obiliIing politi#al a#tion, the 'a#ian e+phasis had +eaning for !o+ania-s e#ono+i# and politi#al develop+ent. his #a+e not only fro+ !o+anti# e4altation of the @pri+itive@ b&t also fro+ (oltaire-s idea, reiterated by Herder, that a people #an progress only if they develop in organi# #ontin&ity Bith their oBn nat&re rather than thro&gh for+s borroBed or i+posed fro+ elseBhere. Eith this, 'a#ianists Noined for#es Bith the opponents of @gallo+ania@ and of foreign i+itation, to Bhi#h +any .78. Liberal refor+ers Bere prone. he #o+bination of 'a#ianis+ and !o+anti#is+ prod&#ed a linked series of antino+ies 0hoBever <&estion% able their e<&ivalen#e2, 'a#ian pri+itive % native % nat&ral organi# d&rable !o+an #iviliIed foreign artifi#ial for#ed perishable 0Bab&%B&Inea 19;9, $12. his series asso#iated 'a#ian an#estry Bith the virt&es of an a&to#hthono&s tradition, in #ontrast to the predatory 0if #iviliIed2 foreigners, and ended Bith the #on#l&sion @i+itation is &npatrioti#@L 'a#ians Bo&ld end&re, as a&to#hthones, Bhereas foreign infl&en#e +eant death. "ro+ the typi#al !o+anti# e&logiIing of the nat&ral, spontaneo&s, and &n#&ltivated against the #orr&pting effe#ts of #iviliIation, then, the 'a#ians be#a+e the pri+ary sy+bols of rea#tion against all that Bas per#eived as Brong Bith the present so#ial order 0ibid., $;%:6, 1$72. Dn#e again, histori#ally based sy+bols repre% sented politi#al state+ents si+&ltaneo&sly abo&t identity, international allegian#e, and internal politi#al #hoi#es. hro&gh its e+phases, 'a#ianis+ stood at the heart of Bhat be#a+e a <&est to define the @national essen#e,@ integral to defining !o+ania-s traNe#tory. By asso#iating itself Bith Bhat Bas &ni<&e and original in the !o+anian #hara#ter, rather than Bith @i+ports,@ 'a#ianis+ be#a+e #entral to a posited pristine ethni# ego, &pon Bhi#h !o+anians- #apa#ity for s&rvival depended and Bhi#h +&st be no&rished and prote#ted fro+ e4ternal #orr&ption. 1&#h ideas had #onse<&en#es not only for politi#s b&t also for literat&re, sin#e !o+anti#is+ held that the +ost i+portant <&ality of #&lt&ral and espe#ially of literary Borks is originality, Bhi#h is linked Bith the national essen#e 0ibid., $52. he traits &ni<&e to the *ation Bill prod&#e a literat&re ri#h in the pre#io&s <&ality of originality. herefore, N&st as folk literat&re &n#onta+inated by foreign so&r#es Bas vieBed as the treas&ry of the national spirit, 'a#ian the+es/held to represent the nat&ral ethni# traditions harboring !o+anian individ&ality/ be#a+e +aNor #onstit&ents of literary prod&#tion. he several ele+ents of this politi#al and aestheti# #on#atenation Bere Bell e4pressed by !o+ania-s +ost fa+o&s poet, E+ines#&, a &ser of 'a#ian the+es, Bhen he la+ented the state of his people in 1881,
U Verrible ignoran#e and #orr&ption above, bla#k ignoran#e and deep +isery beloB. And this is the !o+anian peopleK D&r people of $5%:5 years ago, Bith its healthy barbarity, rare and god%given <&i#kness of +ind, great vigor of .79. spiritL tr&thf&l, #heerf&l, ind&strio&s, ironi#alK . . . And Bhen#e all this #hangeK 1&peri+posed &pon o&r people sits a foreign layer Bitho&t traditions, Bitho&t a fi4ed ho+eland, Bitho&t fi4ed nationality, Bhi#h did aBay Bith Bhat is a people-s +ost pre#io&s possession, its histori#al sense, its sense of ongoing and organi# develop+ent. . . . he tr&e #iviliIation of a people #onsists not in the Bholesale

adoption of laBs, for+s, instit&tions, eti<&ette, foreign #lothes. 3t #onsists in the nat&ral, organi# develop+ent of its oBn poBers and fa#&lties. 3f there is ever to e4ist a tr&e #iviliIation on this soil, it Bill be one that arises fro+ the ele+ents of the an#ient U'a#ianV #iviliIation. "ro+ its oBn roots, in its oBn depths, arises the tr&e #iviliIation of a barbarian peopleL not fro+ the aping of foreign #&sto+s, foreign lang&ages, foreign instit&tions 0#ited in Bab&%B&In#a 19;9, 1$9, 1$$L original e+phasis2.

his Bas E+ines#&-s literary and politi#al progra+, Bhi#h he shared Bith +any other Conservatives, a #o+bination of antipathy to all that s+a#ked of foreign i+positions, praise for the @barbarian@ in the !o+anian past, and Borship for that past as giving vital indi#ations for the proper f&t&re #o&rse. All of this Bas tied to post&lates #on#erning the national essen#e. By the late 1855s, then, a 'a#ian e+phasis had arisen in strong #o&nterstate+ent to the post&late of !o+an origins as a definition of !o+anian identityL and it posed a #riti#is+ of !o+ania-s allian#e Bith the Eest.61 his #o&nterstate+ent had ante#edents in earlier ti+es b&t a#hieved vigor only late in the #ent&ry, Bhen state for+ation and independen#e provided neB roo+ for s&#h a voi#e. 1everal things, 3 believe, Bere parti#&larly signifi#ant abo&t its e+ergen#e. "irst, even tho&gh the 'a#ian e+phasis rarely denied the !o+an ele+ent in the pedigree altogether, it e4panded the s#ope for serio&s indigenist #onsiderations of identity. his e4panded roo+ for an indigenist voi#e Bas a signifi#ant addition to a politi#s Bhose referents had long been overBhel+ingly e4ternal. he shift a##o+panies the for+ation of a !o+anian polity aspiring to a#t for itselfX in ter+s of an identity sy+bol that Bas not @alien.@ 1e#ond, the 'a#ian alternative perpet&ated arg&+ent abo&t !o+anian identity on gro&nds that Bere, still, histori#al. hird, on that histori#al gro&nd 'a#ianis+ staked o&t an alternative, enlarging the ter+s in Bhi#h identity +ight be arg&ed. Ehen there Bas only one fortified position on this histori#al terrain/the Latinist one/state+ents #o&ld be e+itted, b&t they #o&ld not be ade<&ately #ontested and, thereby, deepened. *oB the terrain had be#o+e f&lly tBo%di+ensional. Arg&+ent #o&ld o##&r &pon it, and regardless of the o&t#o+e, intensive intera#tion Bo&ld strengthen the pre+ises &pon Bhi#h the arg&+ent rested, the e4isten#e of an entity #alled @the !o+anian people,@ having .95. an identity that #o&ld be spe#ified in large part thro&gh s#holarly and histori#al investigation. he #on#ept aro&nd Bhi#h +&#h of this investigation Bo&ld revolve Bas the @national essen#e.@ Altho&gh the notion Bas not neB, it re#eived e4pli#it attention only in the latter part of the 1855s. Fenerally #redited Bith having introd&#ed it into dis#&ssion is philosopher and #riti# . =aiores#&, a leading ideolog&e of the Conservative party. =aiores#& arti#&lated one of the +ost tren#hant #riti<&es of the Liberal.pro%Bestern progra+ of develop+ent, the theory of @for+ Bitho&t s&bstan#e,@ Bhi#h arg&ed that the Liberal progra+ i+posed on !o+ania a set of for+s &ns&ited to the s&bstan#e of !o+anian so#iety. o +ake s&#h an arg&+ent re<&ired, of #o&rse, so+e idea of Bhat the s&bstan#e or essen#e of !o+anianness +ight be, and it Bas Bith this proble+ that an in#reasing n&+ber of thinkers and Briters #a+e to o##&py the+selves.66 he <&estion engaged intelle#t&al do+ains that had parti#ipated less a#tively in denying the *ation hitherto. Ehen the proble+ of definition had been regarded as pri+arily histori#al, it had been the preserve largely of historians, philologists, and folklorists. *oB these Bere Noined by philosophers, literati, psy#hologists, and aestheti#ians, Bhose do+ains Bere beginning to develop

sharper dis#iplinary profiles and fir+er professional standards as fields like ethno%psy#hology, folklore, and literat&re distan#ed the+selves so+eBhat fro+ history and fro+ one another 0>&b 1981, 7$2. As the folloBing se#tion of this #hapter Bill shoB, +&#h of this differentiation e4pressed itself thro&gh #lai+s abo&t Bho #o&ld offer the best analysis of !o+anians- national essen#e.

RECAPITULATION
1everal i+portant develop+ents o##&rred d&ring the period s&++ariIed in this se#tion. 3n all three !o+anian lands, the so#ial str&#t&re Bas transfor+ed fro+ one in Bhi#h a nobility had #onsiderable poBer 0even Bhile la#king f&ll #ontrol over the politi#al +e#hanis+2 to one in Bhi#h its poBer had been severely #&rtailed. he #a&se of this transfor+ation Bas not only that prin#es or e+perors had #entraliIed their r&le at the nobles- e4pense b&t that the e#ono+y Bas #hanging, agri#&lt&re Bas in #risis and +an&fa#t&ring Bas on the rise. he #onse<&en#e Bas neB spa#es in the so#ial str&#t&re. 3n ransylvania these Bere o##&pied by the non%!o+anian nationalities and by a s+all, groBing strat&+ of ed&#ated !o+anian professionals and #ivil .91. servantsL in the Prin#ipalities, +e+bers of the i+periled nobility Noined the bo&rgeois, intelle#t&al, and b&rea&#rati# ranks. hese vario&s gro&ps prod&#ed national +ove+ents in all three lands, +ove+ents that fro+ the o&tset #ross%fertiliIed one another despite signifi#ant differen#es in their regional sit&ations. "ro+ these +ove+ents and the traditions they dreB &pon, in all three regions the pre#edent Bas fir+ly established that persons a#tive in intelle#t&al and politi#al life served as spokes+en for the *ation. hey ro&tinely filled politi#al arg&+ent Bith notions abo&t !o+anian identity, so as to gain e4ternal allies, and represented internal politi#al opponents as Aliens. "or +ost of the period dis#&ssed, those Bho spoke for the *ation did so largely in opposition to the a#t&al holders of poBer. hat is, the *ation as a so#io%sy+boli# #onstr&#t Bas prod&#ed in a #o&nterdis#o&rse to the e4er#ise of r&le. Dnly in the third <&arter of the 1855s did the tBo/r&le and dis#o&rse/#o+e together. At that point indigenis+ began to appear in the repertoire of identity state+ents, its tenden#y represented here by a neB 'a#ian e+phasis in the +atter of !o+anian origins. Eith heightened indigenis+ #a+e intensified efforts to define so+ething #alled a @national essen#e@ so as to advo#ate poli#y s&ited to the people-s inner #hara#ter and to defend !o+anians- native endoB+ent against politi#al #orr&ption. By the t&rn of the #ent&ry, the str&ggle betBeen indigenis+ and Besternis+ Bas fir+ly lodged in representations of identity and politi#al dis#o&rse. 1#holars of different dis#iplines Bere sharpening their dis#iplinary bo&ndaries by relating their spe#ialties to the national essen#e, Bhile politi#ians atta#ked one another-s proposals for @i+itation,@ @foreign borroBing,@ or @gallophilia.@ 3n the ne4t se#tion 3 shoB hoB these arg&+ents Bere perpet&ated &nder neB #onditions after Eorld Ear 3, solidifying both the national ideology and the position of intelle#t&als engaged in #onstr&#ting it.

19

to !or"d !ar ##

"or the s&bNe#t of national ideology, it is i+possible to divide the nineteenth #ent&ry #leanly fro+ the tBentieth, sin#e #&rrents in national dis#o&rse that be#a+e visible after 1955 had been gathering for#e in previo&s years. Dne #o&ld instead break at 1918, for !o+anian politi#s Bas dra+ati#ally altered by the o&t#o+e of Eorld Ear 3L yet .96. even so, +any of the post%1918

arg&+ents abo&t the @national essen#e@ +erely #ontin&ed debates fro+ before. here is nonetheless so+e sense to breaking at the #ent&ry, for then #o++en#ed a reversal of the near%<&arter%#ent&ry of e#ono+i# stagnation fro+ Bhi#h the landed #lasses in !o+ania never re#overed. By the t&rn of the #ent&ry the balan#e of for#es in !o+anian politi#s had shifted, together Bith the #o&ntry-s e#ono+i# options. he shift is signifi#ant for +y the+e, given hoB +&#h of the dis#o&rse on national identity #on#erned itself also Bith arg&+ents abo&t develop+ent. he b&lk of this se#tion des#ribes interBar representations of !o+anian identity that Bo&ld infl&en#e those of the period after Eorld Ear 11. Eitho&t a brief a##o&nt of the politi#al #onte4t, hoBever, one #o&ld not #o+prehend Bhy representations of !o+anianness Bere so fre<&ent and so #r&#ial d&ring the first feB de#ades of the tBentieth #ent&ry, +ost espe#ially the 1965s and 1975s. his +eans, in parti#&lar, an o&tline of the #hanges that o##&rred in 1918 and that gave entirely neB valen#es to old arg&+ents, otherBise see+ingly #ontin&o&s fro+ the years before the Bar. o begin Bith !o+ania-s international sit&ation, Fer+any Bas str&ggling to s&pport its #apitalist develop+ent, like "ran#e and Britain before it, by #reating #olonies. Be#a&se other E&ropeans had already #oloniIed +ost of the regions overseas, +&#h of Fer+any-s e4pansion Bas intra%E&ropean, parti#&larly in the Balkans and reso&r#e%ri#h !o+ania. he straitened e#ono+i# #ir#&+stan#es after the Bar per+itted !o+anians feB so&r#es of #redit for their develop+ent plans. Fer+any, espe#ially d&ring the 1975s, proved a Billing lenderL as a res&lt, the !o+anian e#ono+y Bas tightly se#&red Bithin the Fer+an orbit by 1995, #onfir+ing its traNe#tory as a #olony of #apitalist poBers 0se# Chirot 19;:2. An i+portant s&bte4t of the interBar arg&+ents abo&t the proper path for the *ation #on#erned Bhether or not Fer+any Bas a +ore desirable prote#tor than other Bestern poBers.67 1e#ond, postBar !o+anian leaders fa#ed diffi#&lt de#isions #on#erning the e#ono+y, hoB best to in#rease do+esti# #apital a##&+&lation Bitho&t adding to the already h&ge foreign debt fro+ Bar reparations. Arg&+ents raged as to Bhether ind&strialiIation Bas the ansBer, hoB to a#hieve it, and Bhat for+ to give it. 1#ar#ely Bere progra+s for develop+ent in pla#e Bhen the 'epression res&s#itated the arg&+ents all over again. J&estions abo&t the @national essen#e@ entered into the+, Bo&ld ind&stry and foreign #apital #orr&pt the national so&l, Bhat kind of peasantry sho&ld e#ono+i#s pro+ote 0one like the "ren#h, the .97. 'anish, the Fer+ansK a +editative one, an enterprising oneK2, and so forth. *at&rally, the e#ono+i# sol&tions also infl&en#ed #&lt&re and its i+ages of identity. "or e4a+ple, the Liberal party, Bhi#h arg&ed for only sele#tive #apital i+port, had tro&ble generating eno&gh reven&e to pro+ote #&lt&ral interests ade<&ately. 3n the prevailing #li+ate, #o+petition for f&nding a+ong #&lt&ral interests took the for+ of arg&ing over Bhose definition of #&lt&re best s&ited !o+anianstr&e so&l/that is, of #ontesting over and over again the definition of !o+anian identity. hat the govern+ent tended to s&pport s#ien#e over the h&+anities sho&ld be borne in +ind in analyIing the @#&lt&ral prote#tionis+@ of those h&+anists Bho pro+oted the @national essen#e@ in art. hird, perhaps the +ost overBhel+ing proble+s for interBar !o+ania #a+e fro+ the territorial #hanges of the pea#e treaties. o the !o+anian )ingdo+/ knoBn as the @!egat@/Bere added ransylvania 0taken fro+ H&ngarian #ontrol2. A&strian B&#ovina, and Bessarabia 0disp&ted Bith !&ssia for a

#ent&ry2. he res&lt Bas a near do&bling of !o+ania-s pop&lation and land +ass. Altho&gh these #hanges f&lfilled nationalist drea+s, they also bro&ght tre+endo&s proble+s of reorganiIation and &nifi#ation. Higher levels of develop+ent in ransylvania set off a s#ra+ble a+ong !egat%based finan#ial and politi#al interests to se#&re these neB reso&r#es, alienating +any ransylvanians. Politi#al organiIations Bith largely regional bases noB had to broaden their appealL parties proliferated and #o+petition in#reased. he task of &nifying the ad+inistrative, fis#al, N&ral, and religio&s apparat&ses proved ard&o&s be#a&se !o+ania noB #ontained siIable national +inorities, 68 per#ent, as opposed to 8 per#ent in preBar !o+ania, all +aking #lai+s and looking to o&tside poBers. H&ngarians, the largest +inority 08 per#ent2, i+patiently aBaited restit&tion of the old borders and deliveran#e fro+ !o+anian r&le. !o+anian representations of national and territorial &nity therefore took pla#e against the #onstant threat of territorial dis+e+ber+ent, a threat a#t&ally realiIed in 1995, Bhen the 1oviet Union anne4ed Bessarabia and Hitler gave northern ransylvania ba#k to H&ngary. he neB national diversity 0to say nothing of Bidespread anti%H&ngarian feeling2 +otivated a deter+ined effort by the state to +obiliIe !o+anian national senti+ent behind &nity, for not all in the neB territories Bere #onvin#ed that +e+bership in &nited !o+ania Bas serving the+ Bell. 69 Unifi#ation began Bith the very +eans of #&lt&ral prod&#tion and trans+ission, spelling and the le4i#on Bere standardiIed, as they had also been Bhen the tBo Prin#ipalities &nited in 18$9. .99. B&rea&#rats #on#erned abo&t &rban ethni# i+balan#es so&ght to en#o&rage !o+anians- so#ial advan#e+ent into elite stat&s, as Bell as to raise their #&lt&ral level and thereby en#o&rage the +inorities to assi+ilate 0Sanos 19;8, 982. 3n addition, neB #adres had to be #reated for the neBly !o+anian state b&rea&#ra#y and ed&#ational apparat&s in the provin#es, hitherto staffed by other nationalities. Perhaps these #on#erns &nderlay the groBth in the b&dget for ed&#ation/15 per#ent before the Bar and 1:.6 per#ent after it 0ibid., 982/ and the re+arkable rise in the n&+bers of st&dents in higher ed&#ation d&ring these years. BetBeen 1961 and 1969, for e4a+ple, enroll+ents in the &niversity of B&#harest in#reased by al+ost tBo%and%a%half, fro+ 8,911 st&dents to 65,98$, and &niversity enroll+ents nationBide d&ring the 1975s stood at 6.6 st&dents per 1,555 pop&lation/a higher ratio than in any other E&ropean #o&ntry 0)iriRes#& 197$, 7%;2. "o&rth, politi#s and dis#o&rse #hanged #onsiderably in interBar !o+ania be#a&se of the 191; Bolshevik !evol&tion. "ear of the spread of Bolshevis+ be#a+e a per+anent &nder#&rrent of interBar politi#al life. he revol&tion sharpened anti%!&ssian senti+ent, alBays strong in =oldavia, and strengthened pro%Bestern identifi#ations. B&t perhaps +ost i+portant for the f&t&re of !o+anian national ideology Bas the position taken by the Co++&nist 3nternational in the years betBeen 1966 and 1968, Bhen it openly s&pported +inority str&ggles for national liberation even Bhere these NeopardiIed the integrity of already%#onstit&ted states. !o+ania itself Bas labeled an i+perialist #reation and an oppressor of its neBly a#<&ired +inorities. Be#a&se of this #hallenge to the #o&ntry-s politi#al integrity, the govern+ent banned the neBly for+ed !o+anian Co++&nist Party in 1969, driving &ndergro&nd both it and its potential #ontrib&tions to defining the national so&l. hen#eforth, arg&+ents abo&t so#ialis+ and efforts to #o+e to ter+s Bith it, in part thro&gh national +eans, Bere ta#itly interBoven Bith !o+ania-s interBar national

dis#o&rse. he dis#&ssion Bas tr&n#ated, hoBever, and as #hapter 7 Bill shoB, this had f&nda+ental #onse<&en#es for the fate of nationalis+ and =ar4ist ideology after 199$. A final i+portant postBar #hange Bas the altered stat&s of tBo gro&ps that Bo&ld be#o+e #entral to representations of !o+anian identity, the peasants and the SeBs. A +assive peasant &prising in 195;, together Bith Bhat the Bolshevik !evol&tion i+plied for peasant #ons#io&sness, #a&sed the !o+anian Parlia+ent to pass a +aNor land refor+ and to e4tend &niversal +ale s&ffrage to peasants. hese #hanges re<&ired in#orporating the peasantry/in rhetori#, if nothing else/ .9$. into politi#al platfor+s, Bhi#h noB +ight also advo#ate a previo&sly &nrealisti# s+all%holder e#ono+y. he land refor+ eli+inated fro+ the politi#al s#ene the last vestiges of the Conservative 0large landoBners-2 party, leaving a #lear field to the Liberals &ntil an ostensibly Peasantist #oalition Bas #e+ented in the late 1965s. he #hanged stat&s of the peasantry is one reason Bhy peasants noB fig&red even +ore #entrally than before in representations of !o+anian identity/and fro+ a variety of politi#al angles. Another reason Bas the high level of &rbaniIation of the national +inorities in the neB provin#es, Bhi#h loBered fro+ ;9 per#ent to $9 per#ent the proportion of the &rban pop&lation that Bas ethni#ally !o+anian. Eith this, peasants literally be#a+e the #o++on deno+inator of 0ethni#ally2 !o+anian so#iety 0LiveIean& 198:, 1;%182. Altho&gh the peasants- #hanged stat&s reverberated in #o&ntless positive i+ages of the *ation, the #hanged stat&s of SeBs affe#ted their i+age adversely. heir enfran#hise+ent and the re+oval of all #onstraints on their e#ono+i# a#tivities +ade the+ a threat to the aspirations of the e4panding !o+anian bo&rgeoisieL in #onse<&en#e, they be#a+e even +ore i+portant as a prin#ipal @Dther@ 0often &nder the g&ise of anti&rban representations2 against Bho+ !o+anian identity Bo&ld be defined. An asso#iation betBeen @SeB@ and @Bolshevik@ e4a#erbated the proble+s SeBs noB fa#ed in !o+ania and a&g+ented the #&rrents of antise+itis+ already floBing prior to Eorld Ear 3. "or all these reasons, the preo##&pation Bith defining the *ation in#reased after the Bar, even over its already%high level of before, and #ontrib&ted to for+ing an all%e+bra#ing national dis#o&rse that str&#t&red the lang&age of politi#s and #&lt&re 0se# also LiveIean& 198:, 72. he tensions of lo#alis+ and #entralis+, the fragility of the neB borders, the efforts of the left to #reate an international Borking%#lass +ove+ent hostile to the !o+anian state, the disproportions of national +inorities in o##&pations of high reBard, and all the other e4igen#ies of nation%b&ilding gave pree+inen#e to the idio+ of the *ation. hose Bho &tiliIed this idio+ Bere +e+bers of politi#al, religio&s, and intelle#t&al elites, having diverse so#ial origins and affiliations. 6$ 1in#e so#ial a#tors #ir#&lated in and o&t of for+al politi#al offi#e, @intelle#t&als@ Bere not #ategori#ally separate fro+ @politi#ians@6: 0and even the ar#hbishop of ransylvania served for a ti+e as regent2. Politi#ians and intelle#t&als Bere e<&ally a#tive in developing the national dis#o&rse, rehearsing a variety of the+es that referred overtly or i+pli#itly to the identity of !o+anians. hro&gh the+, the interBar years be#a+e a #on#erted .9:. period for +aking national ideology hege+oni#, the basis for a broad #onsent that in#orporated the atta#h+ents of !o+anian peasants freed fro+ national oppression in the neBly a#<&ired provin#es. Dnly 65 per#ent of the pop&lation failed to find this ideology attra#tive. his leads to one final point #on#erning the differen#e in !o+anian national

ideology before and after Eorld Ear 3. Before, there had alBays been !o+anians o&tside the state borders Bhose interests had to be defended against dis#ri+ination by other national gro&ps 0H&ngarians, !&ssians, A&strians, and so forth2. *oB, virt&ally all !o+anians Bere #ontained in a single state Bithin Bhi#h they, along Bith a siIable n&+ber of non%!o+anians, Bere oppressed by their oBn. An ideology that had been developed for several #ent&ries as a Bay of gaining rights for !o+anians noB be#a+e the ideology of a so#ial syste+ that had its oBn f&nda+ental ine<&alities. 6; Altho&gh by fo#&sing on intelle#t&als +y dis#&ssion &ndere+phasiIes #lass differen#e, it sho&ld not be forgotten that those intelle#t&als Bho arg&ed abo&t the national essen#e Bere #onstr&#ting the +eans for ideologi#al s&bNe#tion of their #o&ntry+en, !o+anian and non%!o+anian, Bithin the neB state.

DEFINING THE NATION BETWEEN EAST AND WEST

By the t&rn of the #ent&ry, #on#ern Bith the @national essen#e@ had spread into virt&ally all politi#al and intelle#t&al dis#o&rse. *ot everyone Bho parti#ipated in the debates &sed the ter+ @national essen#e,@ nor Bas it the e4pli#it agenda for all Bho #ontrib&ted to itL b&t fro+ 1955 on, there Bas s#ar#ely a politi#ian, regardless of party, and s#ar#ely a thinker, Bhether in e#ono+i#s, psy#hology, so#iology, ethnography, philosophy, literat&re, or art, Bho did not dire#tly or indire#tly have so+ething to say abo&t !o+anians- essential #hara#ter. 68 "or nearly all of the+, the obNe#tive Bas to #reate a strong national polity, e#ono+y, and #&lt&re. =&#h of this Briting took off fro+ the @for+ Bitho&t s&bstan#e@ theory of =aiores#&, +entioned earlier, Bhi#h #riti#iIed the #orrosive effe#ts of @#os+opolitan borroBings@ and ai+ed to pro+ote the organi# develop+ent of a !o+anian #&lt&re and so#iety, s&ited to the people-s innate #hara#ter. His sol&tions 0Bhi#h in#l&ded advo#ating a literat&re b&ilt &pon ethni# and r&ral the+es2 Bere pi#ked &p and Bidely debated thro&gho&t the ne4t several de#ades, as parti#ipants Borried Bhether to keep the old so#ial and literary .9;. str&#t&res Bithin Bhi#h !o+anian for+s had developed or to alter the+, and hoB or hoB +&#h 0Drnea 1985, 7992. he vario&s positions in these debates have been #lassified in several Bays nearly all of Bhi#h e+ploy the ter+s &sed by the parti#ipants. 69 *o one has yet proposed a #o+prehensive analysis that avoids @native@@ ter+s and identifies lo#ations in the field of dis#o&rse by entirely other #riteriaL the present #hapter is no e4#eption. 3n keeping Bith +y interest in representations of identity, 3 Bill speak pri+arily of @BesterniIers,@ @indigenists,@ and @pro%orientals.@ 3ndigenists #a+e in great varietyL so+e of the+ leaned ever so slightly eastBard or BestBard, Bhile still e+phasiIing <&alities they tho&ght pe#&liar to !o+anians and Bished to prote#t fro+ the #orr&pting effe#ts of i+ported #iviliIations, parti#&larly the Bestern one. he b&lk of arg&+ent took pla#e betBeen the BesterniIers and the indigenists, b&t the pro%orientals Bere signifi#ant disproportionate to their n&+bers, oBing to their s&##ess in keeping the <&estion on the agenda and to their asso#iation Bith the fas#ist #&rrents that grad&ally prevailed in !o+anian politi#s. Cl&stered Bithin ea#h parti#ipant-s vieBs Bere not only ideas abo&t !o+ania-s relation Bith the Eest or East b&t proposals for or against ind&strialiIation, an agrarian or peasant state, parlia+entary de+o#ra#y, religion in the national so&l, pop&list or peasant the+es in literat&re, the positive or negative so#ial val&e of gro&ps s&#h as the peasantry or the &rban bo&rgeoisie, and so on. 'isagree+ent persisted over s&#h points as Bhat Bere the pri+ary and Bhat

the se#ondary defining traits of the national essen#eL Bhether its dia#riti#a ar# #&sto+s and lang&age and territory or, rather, +atters of tonality or intensity of affe#tL Bhether it is s&bNe#t to alteration &nder #hanged environ+ental #onditionsL to Bhat e4tent history has a part in prod&#ing itL Bhether it is lodged in the blood. he <&estions #a+e to be phrased in s&#h a Bay that al+ost every a#ade+i# dis#ipline, as Bell as every position on the politi#al spe#tr&+, #o&ld have so+ething to say abo&t the+. he positions ar# best ill&strated thro&gh the Bords of so+e of the parti#ipants the+selves. D&r s&rvey is ne#essarily brief, and it oversi+plifies be#a&se it #an give voi#e to only a feB of the best%knoBn #ontrib&tors. "irst, the pro%orientals 0knoBn at the ti+e as the @Drthodo4ists@2, 3f the +ission of die !o+anian people is to #reate a #&lt&re after its i+age and likeness, this i+plies as Bell hoB its orientation +&st be resolved. Ehoever re#o++ends an orientation toBard the Eest speaks nonsense. Drientation . 98. #ontains Bithin itself the notion of Drient and +eans dire#ting o&rselves toBard the Drient, in a##ord Bith the Drient. Altars fa#e toBard the DrientL the i#ons of the hearth fa#e &s fro+ the DrientL the peasant Bho kneels in his field fa#es the Drient. EveryBhere it is said that light #o+es fro+ die East. And for &s, Bho find o&rselves geographi#ally in die Drient and Bho, thro&gh o&r Drthodo4 religion, hold to the tr&ths of the eastern Borld, there #an be no other orientation than toBard the Drient, that is, toBard o&rselves .... EesterniIation +eans the negation of o&r orientalnessL E&ropeaniIing nihilis+ +eans the negation of o&r #reative potential. Ehi#h +eans to negate in prin#iple a !o+anian #&lt&re, to negate a destiny proper to !o+anians, and to a##ept the destiny of a people born dead 0Craini# 1969, 72. A great river of orientalness, then, floBed in the riverbed of o&r people-s so&l. ByIanti&+ and )iev took their toll of it as it passed by, floBing &nderneath Drthodo4y/that i+port, Bhi#h in ti+e dissolved into the reservoir of o&r pri+itive for#es. UDrthodo4yV th&s for+s part of o&r people-s B#aldi and #onstit&tes yet another poBer by Bhi#h o&r patriar#hal +entality, o&r native geni&s, differentiates itself fro+ and resists the #&rrents of E&ropean #iviliIation, so fresh in their histori#al origin 0Craini# 197:, 952. *i#hifor Craini#, theologian and professor of +ysti#is+ in the B&#harest "a#&lty of heology, held doBn the @eastern+ost@ #orner of debates on the national essen#e, largely thro&gh No&rnalisti# pie#es in the +agaIine he edited, Thought 0Gndirea2.75 "or hi+, the essential !o+anian Bas a peasant, a #onte+plative Bho disdained +aterial #on#erns and Bas therefore &ns&ited to ind&strial Bork, and Bhose so&l Bas for+ed by adheren#e to the Drthodo4 faith. Craini# and another infl&ential Drthodo4ist, philosophy professor *ae 3ones#&, opposed all Bestern for+s, in#l&ding de+o#ra#yL their progra+ Bas for a peasant state free of ind&strial artifi#e. As 3ones#& p&t it,
Ehat state politi#s do Be noB proposeK ... A Bholly revol&tionary politi#s, . . . UBhi#hV re#o++ends, de#o&pling &s fro+ Borld politi#sL #losing &s &p in o&r oBn borders as #o+pletely as possibleL taking into #onsideration Bhat is realisti# for !o+aniaL provisionally red&#ing o&r standard of living to a realisti# levelL and laying the fo&ndations for a !o+anian 1tate of peasant str&#t&re, the only for+ in Bhi#h Be #an tr&ly live a##ording to the indi#ations of o&r nat&re and the only one Be #an i+plant that Bill enable the poBers of o&r ra#e tr&ly and #o+pletely to bear fr&it 0lon#s#& 197;, 68:%68;2.

As this <&otation +akes #lear, even these e4tre+e pro%oriental voi#es spoke for a kind of indigenis+, rather than for &nion Bith the Drient 0irredee+ably tainted noB Bith Bolshevis+2, and this is evident also in their preferring the

'a#ians to so+e +ore oriental an#estor. Both these +en ar# generally regarded as +aNor ideolog&es of !o+anian fas#is+, .99. ad+irers of Hitler and =&ssolini despite their anti%Bestern talk, and antise+ites. A #haris+ati# fig&re, 3ones#& e4erted tre+endo&s infl&en#e on his st&dents at &niversity, a+ong Bho+ Bere =ir#ea Eliade and Constantin *oi#a 0se# #hapter ;2. Asso#iated Bith the Drthodo4ists for a ti+e b&t grad&ally parting #o+pany Bith the+ Bere eastBard%leaning indigenists s&#h as ransylvanian 71 philosopher.poet L&#ian Blaga. Here is an early for+&lation of his idea of !o+anianness, before the groBing fas#ist danger #a&sed hi+ to re#onsider,
Ee think o&rselves +erely Latins/l&#id, rational, te+perate, lovers of #lassi#al for+/b&t Billy%nilly Be ar# +ore than that. UAV signifi#ant per#ent of 1lavi# and hra#ian blood seethes in o&r veins. he !o+anian spirit +ay be do+inated by Latinity, a pea#ef&l and #&lt&red for#e, b&t Be have also a ri#h latent hra#e%1lavi# fo&ndation, e4&berant and vital, Bhi#h, no +atter hoB +&#h Be oppose it, so+eti+es deta#hes itself fro+ the nedier real+s and rises &p poB#r%f&lly in o&r #ons#io&sness. D&r Latin sy++etry and har+ony are often battered by a stor+ that rages in the !o+anian spirit at near%+etaphysi#al depthsL and this stor+ is the revolt of o&r non%Latin so&l . . . Ehy sho&ld Be violate o&r tr&e nat&re, #orset o&rselves in a for+&la of Latin #larity, Bhen so +any other possibilities for develop+ent lie Bithin &s in that barbarian &n#ons#io&sK 0Blaga 1961, 181%1862.

A siIable part of Blaga-s op&s Bent to defining the +etaphysi#al basis for !o+anian identity, in ter+s that oBed +&#h to "robeni&s, "re&d, and S&ng. Df ro&ghly si+ilar indigenis+, despite great differen#es in their theoreti#al syste+s and their approa#hes to <&estions of the day, Bere people s&#h as the fa+o&s historians (asile PPrvan and *i#olae 3orga. he latter, like Blaga, e+phasiIed noB the hra#ians, noB !o+e 0and so+eti+es ByIanti&+2, Bhile parting #o+pany Bith the Drthodo4ists. All these thinkers agreed in r&raliIing and indigeniIing the national essen#e. Close to the+ in indigenist representations b&t resol&tely opposed to eastern affiliations as Bell as to Bestern infl&en#e, Bas philosopher%psy#hologist Constantin !ad&l#s#&%=otr&,
D&r Bhole so#ial life is shot thro&gh Bith ill&sions. Ee have adopted #ivil and politi#al laBs &ns&ited to o&r traditionsL Be have organiIed a p&bli# ed&#ation &seless to the large +aNority of the peopleL Be have i+itated the bo&rgeois te#h% ni<&e of e#ono+i# prod&#tion in Bhi#h neidier die <&alities of o&r people nor die Bealth of o&r #o&ntry #an bear fr&itL Be have done everydiing in o&r poBer to falsify the traditions and the aptit&des given &s by nat&re . . . UdiinkingW o&rselves obligated to be to E&rope-s taste. . . . "or better than a #ent&ry, the !o+anian people has not been faithf&l to itself. Let &s have an end to e4peri+ents .$5. Bith laBs for the Uso%#alledS @Belgi&+ of the Drient@ 0!ad&les#&%=otr& 197:, 71,118,7$2.

A st&dent of =aiores#&-s Bith advan#ed degrees fro+ "ran#e and Fer+any, ![d&les#&%=otr& Borked to develop a philosophy and psy#hology s&ited to the !o+anian #hara#ter and to #reate a for+ of ethni# #ons#io&sness different fro+ Bestern%style nationalis+.76 His indigenis+ e+phasiIed a&tono+o&sly based #&lt&ral and politi#al develop+ent b&t not #o+plete isolation, the very title of the p&bli#ation he fo&nded, he E&ropean 3deaX indi#ated his desire for !o+ania-s #o++&ni#ation Bith and integration into E&rope, b&t only on !o+anian ter+s. His ideal !o+anian Bas, like that of all the Briters +entioned so far, a peasant &ns&ited to ind&strial Bork. Unlike +any indigenists, hoBever, he saB ethni# traits not as bred in the genes b&t as environ%+entally #onditioned. 3n #ontrast to indigenists s&#h as these 0and there Bere +any others2 Bere +oderate BesterniIers s&#h as =oldavian literary #riti# Farabet 3br[ilean&,

3n the tBentieth #ent&ry, history has set !o+anians the folloBing proble+, Bill !o+ania #ontin&e to be a se+i%asiati#, oriental #o&ntry or Bill it enter the ranks of E&ropean peoples and E&ropean #&lt&re. his proble+ has been ansBered by history. "or vario&s reasons, !o+ania #o&ld not e4e+pt itself fro+ the E&ropean infl&en#e UthatV penetrated into o&r #o&ntry. 3t penetrated thro&gh the very fa#t of its s&periority 03brail#an& 1959, 6:12.

3br[ilean& and the p&bli#ation he edited fro+ 195: to 1977, !o+anian LifeX Bere asso#iated Bith the Pop&list +ove+ent fo&nded in 1897%189$ by the Bessarabian C. 1tere. 3t a##epted a #ertain a+o&nt of Bestern infl&en#e and innovation as ne#essary to #atalyIing !o+ania-s so#ial and artisti# develop+ent, Bhi#h sho&ld nonetheless give priority to ethni# val&es. he <&alified pro%Besternis+ of the 1tere%3br[ilean& gro&p Bas &ne4pe#tedly #o+bined Bith s&#h e+phases as the peasantry <&a heart of the *ation, 77 an agrarianist politi#o%e#ono+i# progra+, a generally #enter%left politi#al orientation, an ethni#ist aestheti# ideal 0art based on ethni# the+es2, and #&lt&ral prote#tionis+ 0se# beloB2. 'espite having early so#ialist sy+pathies, they insisted that the *ation took pre#eden#e over its #lass divisions, #riti#iIed the so#ialists for not attending to the national essen#e, and ref&sed to en#o&r% age revol&tionary peasant a#tion on the gro&nds that it Bo&ld prod&#e #ivil Bar. 1tere reNe#ted a #lass analysis of !o+anian so#iety th&s, .$1.
Fer+any #an afford to be divided into antagonisti# #lasses in a state of str&ggle, for its e4isten#e as a #o&ntry is not thereby i+periled. B&t die str&#t&re of !o+ania is feeble. 1he has not die possibility to throB herself into a str&ggle of #lasses. Ee +&st pla#e the interests of o&r #o&ntry above everything else 01tere, #ited in '&randin 198;, 8:2.

His s&bordination of a #lass progra+ to the @national interest@ led hi+ to +erge his Pop&lists Bith the Liberal party in 1899. 3n #ontrast to 1tore-s and 3br[ilean&-s gr&dging a##eptan#e of Bestern infl&en#e Bere those enth&siasti# BesterniIers Bho eagerly e+bra#ed it,
Under the banner of Drthodo4y and tradition so+e persons flo&rish the ideal/ stati# and i++obiliIed in hierati# byIantine%+&s#ovite for+s/of a pri+itive U!o+anianV #&lt&re Bitho&t develop+ent or prospe#ts. D&r #&lt&ral ideal Uin #ontrastV is dyna+i#, eager tor groBth, reneBal and fr&#tifi#ation. . . . Ee +ean to propagate a sense of #&lt&re that is E&ropean. D&r light #o+es fro+ the Eest. Ee se# o&r deliveran#e in the o##identaliIation of this #o&ntry, +any of Bhose vital organs ar# p&trefying even before it has readied +at&rity. Balkanis+, o&r #herished and idealiIed orientalness . . . noB shelters all the brigands Bho have i+peded politi#al p&rifi#ation and opposed &plifting the people fro+ die #&lt&ral #esspool in Bhi#h they flo&nder. . . . UEe seekV the affir+ation of o&r geni&s and spe#ifi# #hara#ter in the for+s of E&ropean #&lt&re, in the har+onio&s and shining fra+eBork of the #&lt&re of the Eest. . . . Ee have faith that soap, #o+fort and &rbanis+, die telegraph and #ivil laB in no Bay threaten the p&rity of o&r ra#e . . . 0"ilotti 1969, 6%92. 3solated fro+ die rhyth+ of Eestern #iviliIation by its s&rro&ndings and its religion, the !o+anian people Bas &nable to develop in its oBn +anner and Bas dero&ted fro+ the potentialities of its ra#eL for entire #ent&ries it e4pressed its Latin tho&ght in #&+berso+e Cyrilli# lettersL des#ended of those Bhose &nbeaten Bill and energy #on<&ered the Borld, o&r so&l Bas dislo#ated by infiltrations of oriental fatalis+. 3s this the definitive for+&la for o&r ra#eK ... i+e is on o&r side and, after ages of alienation and defor+ation, neB prospe#ts have arisen for die #reation of a tr&ly !o+anian so&l. 3f Be see+ to so+e historians +elan#holy step#hildren of a !o+anian%ByIantine%1lavi#% &rkish%Phanariot tradition, let &s hope that in the eyes of f&t&re generations, Be Bill see+ venerable forefathers of a tr&e !o+anian tradition Uthro&gh the infl&en#e of E&ropeV 0Lovines#& 19;6, 9$8%9$92.,A9

EesterniIers s&#h as literary #riti#s "ilotti and Lovines#&, together Bith others tike >eletin and (oinea in politi#al e#ono+y, sat at the opposite end of the

spe#tr&+ fro+ Frail%lie-s pro%oriental e4tre+e. hey saB #onta#t Bith the Eest as liberating even Bhile they Borked for a @tr&ly !o+anian tradition@ as a res&lt of s&#h #onta#t. 1talBarts of the Liberal .$6. party, like +ost of the asso#iates of !o+anian Life, they nonetheless differed fro+ the latter in advo#ating ind&strial and &rban develop+ent and in reNe#ting the r&ral Borld as the epito+e of the !o+anian essen#e or the +odel for !o+anian art. Peasants do not represent p&rity, Lovines#& arg&ed, sin#e they have absorbed as +any heterogeneo&s ele+ents as the bo&rgeoisie. Lovines#&-s #entrality to so+e of the debates of the 19;5s and 1985s, parti#&larly those dis#&ssed in #hapter $, re<&ires a brief s&++ary of his +ost i+portant ideas.7$ he prin#ipal Bork in Bhi#h he Noined debates abo&t the national essen#e Bas his three%vol&+e History of =odern !o+anian CiviliIation 019;6 U1969/196:V2. his Bork engaged in open and vigoro&s pole+i# Bith virt&ally every other vieB abo&t the proper interpretation of !o+ania-s prior develop+ent, prospe#ts, and essen#eL his +ain opponents, hoBever, Bere the @traditionalists,@ Bho+ he atta#ked Bith the notion of syn#hronis+ 0syn#hronis+2. By this he +eant @interdependen#e, . . . that is the tenden#y for all for+s of life in +odern so#ieties that are solidary Bith one another to be#o+e &nifor+@ 0ibid., 79$2. He raised this notion to the stat&s of a so#iologi#al laB, given that all E&ropean #o&ntries ar# interdependent, ideas and develop+ents in one Bill ne#essarily have reper#&ssions in the others, as the less%developed so#ieties i+itate the +ore advan#ed. his prin#iple of i+itation obtained in all real+s, he said, fro+ the te#hni#al thro&gh the so#iopoliti#al and on into literary and artisti# for+s, and it held the pro+ise of progress in all of the+. At botto+, Lovines#& strove to de+onstrate that +odern #apitalist so#iety and all its entail+ents Bere so#iologi#al ne#essities for !o+ania and had already bro&ght it benefits. his Bas in no Bay intended, hoBever, to negate the idea of the national essen#e, as latter%day @traditionalists@ Bo&ld so+eti+es #harge. At no point did he <&estion Bhether s&#h an essen#e e4isted b&t adhered f&lly to the idea of a @national so&l@/Bhi#h, hoBever, he saB relativisti#ally, as s&bNe#t to #hange. He en#o&raged borroBing of Bestern for+s in the belief that they Bo&ld #ontrib&te to developing Bhat Bas best in indigeno&s so#ial and #&lt&ral life,
Dn a##o&nt of die vi#issit&des of history, die artisti# sensibilities of o&r people #o&ld +anifest the+selves only in inferior for+s and genres, Bhi#h #annot serve as points of depart&re for an art s&bNe#t to the i+peratives of Borld%Bide syn#hronis+. . . . "ro+ die f&sion of all foreign infl&en#es Bith the +olding spirit of o&r ra#e Bill e+erge the art of the f&t&re, Bith s&ffi#ient parti#&larities to #onstit&te a !o+anian style 0Lovines#& 196;, 177, e+phasis added2. .$7.

hat is, syn#hronis+ Bith the Eest Bo&ld help to affir+ a !o+anian identity Bith its oBn spe#ial #hara#teristi#s. Lovines#& resisted not the idea of a national essen#e b&t its dog+atiIation, a##epting the idea if it Bas not &sed to #reate straitNa#kets for literary prod&#tion. He Bas relentless in his opposition to Bhatever #reated s&#h straitNa#kets/+ysti#is+ Drthodo4is+, !o+anti# senti+entalis+, and e4altations of a pri+itive r&ral spirit, Bhi#h he regarded as ana#hronisti#. o +ini+iIe the #onstraints on literary #reation, he advo#ated that aestheti# N&dg+ents be a&tono+o&s of all other #onsiderations 0this position Bo&ld reappear in the 19:5s2. hat he Bas spitting into the Bind of his ti+e is evident in the defeat of his no+inations for +e+bership in the !o+anian A#ade+y and for a &niversity post. his brief s&rvey of representations of !o+anianness fro+ East to Eest has

#oin#ided in part Bith a passage fro+ the far right of the politi#al spe#tr&+ to the #enter%left 0tho&gh these tBo a4es/East.Eest and right.left/do not s&peri+pose perfe#tly2. 3t re+ains to #onsider Bhat the far left/the so#ialists and #o++&nists/#ontrib&ted to defining the national essen#e. 1o+e people Bith so#ialist sy+pathies 0s&#h as !alea of !o+anian Life2 Bere BesterniIers Bith reservationsL others, altho&gh they reNe#ted Lovines#&-s @idealist@ analysis of !o+ania-s politi#al and e#ono+i# develop+ent, shared his e+bra#e of die Eest and of a bo&rgeois.#apitalist traNe#tory for !o+ania, Bhi#h #o&ld lead to so#ialis+L still others resisted the entire dis#o&rse of a national essen#e, in Bhi#h they saB the obf&s#ating intent of a bo&rgeoisie ai+ing to disar+ the #lass #ons#io&sness of the +asses. his last point of vieB is Bell ill&strated by leftist P. Pandr#a,7: Bho insisted that any nation #ontains h&ge differen#es Bithin it, persons of the sa+e #lass position fro+ different nations so+eti+es having +ore in #o++on than different #lasses Bithin a single nation. @Ee neither find &sef&l nor a##ept the idea of -national- #&lt&res,@ he said, #lai+ing that the theory of national #&lt&res +arks the as#ension of national bo&rgeoisies, Bho &se it to s&ppress the #lass str&ggle, peasants and proletarians, &nlike bo&rgeoisies, have theories that are international 0Pandrea 1971, 12. An even bolder state+ent #o+es fro+ the fo&nder of !o+anian so#ialis+, C. 'obrogean&%Fherea, Bho asserted, @ he nation is a senti+ental ideologi#al%&topian fantasy that does not e4ist@ 019;:, 1792. 3deas s&#h as these refle#t the internationalis+ of the Borld so#ialist +ove+ent of the ti+e and shoB Bhy the ideology of the *ation #o&ld be#o+e the preserve of the politi#al right. his is not to s&ggest, hoBever, that no one on the left Bas prepared .$9. to defend the *ation, tho&gh &nder the #onditions set by the Co++&nist 3nternational it Bas not easy. An e4a+ple of s&#h a defense #o+es fro+ one of the feB early !o+anian #o++&nists Bith a solid rep&tation as both a gen&ine =ar4ist and a patriot, L. P[tr[M#an&,
he right +onopoliIed the nationalist for+&la for itself. B&t this Bas an o&trageo&s lie. . . . HoB to e4plain otherBise the fa#t that it Bas pre#isely the far right . . . that stood by i+passively Bhen the body of ransylvania Bas being torn to shredsK Ui.e.. Hitler-s aBard of northern ransylvania to H&ngary in 1995/k.v.S Eere they nationalistsK *oA hey Bere rea#tionaries, and they borroBed nationalist phrases so as to #apt&re the +inds of the naive. Ee U#o++&nistsV str&ggle to resolve the proble+s of de+o#ra#y Bithin the fra+eBork of o&r nation. 3n o&r sol&tions nationalis+ Bill not +ean #ha&vinis+ or antise+itis+L Be Bill tie the national idea to the idea of die +asses, realiIing the national idea in tr&th by raising the +asses to a #ons#io&s life. BetBeen o&r politi#al faith as #o++&nists and the national idea th&s &nderstood there is no #ontradi#tion 0P[tr[M#an& 199:, 192.

Eith this, he adopts the Bidespread ta#ti# of a##&sing his opponents/ the far right/of serving @foreign interests@ 0Hitleris+2 and identifies the essen#e of the *ation Bith @the +asses.@ 3n his Britings P[tr[M#an& does not go to the lengths of the Briters #onsidered above, hoBever, to define Bhat identity the !o+anian *ation sho&ld have, other than a +ass base. h&s, altho&gh not abdi#ating national <&estions altogether, he and other #o++&nists #ontrib&ted +ini+ally to forging national ideology be#a&se they ref&sed to arg&e its spe#ifi#s and thereby to #onsolidate its &nspoken pre+ises.

THE SOCIAL EFFICACY OF DEBATES ON THE NATION

he pre#eding se#tion has introd&#ed so+e the+es and personages that Bill re#&r in s&bse<&ent #hapters. =y intention noB is not to offer an e4tended

analysis of these arg&+ents, their sy+boli# #ontent, or their links to the politi#al field in Bhi#h they Bere o##&rring7; b&t to s&ggest provisionally hoB this dis#o&rse Bas so#ially effi#a#io&s, Bhat did it a##o+plish so#ially that +ight have #onse<&en#es for the res&+ption of talk abo&t the *ation after the 19$5s. 3 arg&e, folloBing Fh#orghi&, that +&#h of this talk abo&t the *ation Bas #reating a spa#e for intelle#t&al prod&#tion, and 3 s&ggest in parti#&lar that talk abo&t national identity d&ring the interBar years be#a+e literally #onstit&tive of a#ade+i# dis#iplines and their asso#iated pra#ti#es. Dne sees these pro#esses in a#tion espe#ially in the intelle#t&als- .$$. proliferating talk to and abo&t the+selves and their self%+obiliIation in defense of the *ationL one sees it as Bell in their invo#ations of the national essen#e as their dis#iplines be#a+e +ore spe#ialiIed. 3 Bill first ill&strate these tBo points Bith so+e <&otations and then #onsider Bhy they +ight have taken this parti#&lar for+.

#nte""ectua"s $efend the Nation and Construct Themse"ves%

Feorges#& observes 01987, 17$2 that the e4#esses of interBar nationalis+ #a+e fro+ the desire to preserve !o+ania-s gains in Eorld Ear 3. here is no do&bt that territorial an4ieties provided a +aNor #ons#io&s +otivation for +any people. Perhaps less #ons#io&sly, intelle#t&als in ea#h provin#e Bere str&ggling to preserve and even e4pand the spa#e for intelle#t&al a#tivity, in a so#iety in Bhi#h the te#hni#al re<&ire+ents of e#ono+i# develop+ent Bere displa#ing h&+anists fro+ #enter stage. 3n the interBar #&lt&ral press there appeared n&+ero&s arti#les appealing to !o+anian intelle#t&als to help b&ild the state, to defend national &nity, to organiIe against #orr&pt politi#ians, to engage in proNe#ts for refor+, and +any other things.7@ Here are three state+ents draBn fro+ arti#les of this type, to shoB Bhat they propose.
U Vhe role intelle#t&als deserve UisV giving dire#tives and establishing the neB basis for organiIing and leading o&r state, tasks that to this point have been entr&sted only to people +ade ri#h thro&gh #o++er#e and #orr&pt politi#s. Dnly an intelle#t&al refor+ Bill bring abo&t die ne#essary #hange in habits and die +oral refor+ needed to heal o&r state organis+ of its +any sins .... DrganiIed intelle#t&als Bill be #alled &pon to give dire#tives and to reorganiIe on a fir+ basis all that the Bar disorganiIed and broke apart. . . . Ee have +&#h need of greater Bisdo+ and honor in the leadership of o&r land 0!a&l% eodores#& 1919, 62. he obligation of intelle#t&als is to #onsolidate pea#e and to offer their labors toBard resolving o&r +oral and +aterial diffi#&lties. 3ntelle#t&als #annot #ontin&e to re+ain indifferent to the gravity of the #&rrent sit&ation, Bhi#h threatens the very fo&ndations of the !o+anian state. . . . heir p&rpose sho&ld be to organiIe Bith foresight for state leadership. o this end, UBeV appeal to intelle#t&als to for+ an Asso#iation, having a progra+ +ore general than those of the asso#iations organiIed to defend professional interests. 3n addition to spreading thro&gh all so#ial strata enlighten+ent, ideas of N&sti#e, and s#ientifi# tr&di/indispensable for resolving the proble+s fa#ed in organiIing o&r state/ this Asso#iation Bill present, Bhenever ne#essary, spe#ifi# proposals draBn &p by #o+petent persons free of party preN&di#e. . . . Above all other +atters . . . Uthe Asso#iation Bill o##&py itself Bith2 #onsolidating o&r national &nity, thro&gh laying doBn a Constit&tion for United !o+ania . . . 0![d&les#&%=otr& 1961, 62. .$:. 3ntelle#t&als . . . represent die only invin#ible for#e of a nation. ... A nation enters into eternity not thro&gh its politi#ians, nor its ar+y, nor its peasants or proletarians/b&t only thro&gh Bhat is tho&ght, dis#overed, and #reated Bithin it. ... he for#es that s&stain a #o&ntry-s history and feed its +ission have nothing to do Bith the politi#al, the e#ono+i#, or the so#ial. hey are borne and +agnified only by @intelle#t&als.@ . . . his, then, is Bhat @intelle#t&als@ represent, the str&ggle

against non%being, against deathL die per+anent affir+ation of their nation-s geni&s, virility, and poBer to #reate 0Eliade 1979, 6, original e+phases2.

hese and +any other arti#les #all &pon intelle#t&als to #lean &p the +ess that #orr&pt politi#s has #reated, to raise the #ons#io&sness and #&lt&ral level of the rest of the *ation, and to defend it or the integrity of the state. 3n this part of their talk abo&t the *ation, intelle#t&als Bere #onstr&#ting/ a+ong other things/the separation of the+selves fro+ +an&al labor. he i+pli#ations &nderlying +&#h of the rhetori# abo&t @the peasantry@ shoB this Bell. As +entioned above, #hanges after the Bar +ade the @peasant proble+@ a +aNor #on#ern of the period, apparent in the #entral role a##orded the peasantry in interBar debates. he proble+ Bas not, of #o&rse, only !o+anian, HobsbaB+ observes 01987, 6:$%6::2 that states fa#e proble+s Bhenever the fran#hise is e4tended, and these proble+s are eased if a seg+ent of the pop&la#e #an be identified as @traditional,@ that is, obedient. his Bas s&rely the role assigned to !o+ania-s peasantry, along Bith +any other peasants in the Borld of the tBentieth #ent&ry. DrganiIations and proNe#ts for r&ral refor+ abo&nded in the plans of elites a#ross the Bhole spe#tr&+ of representations and politi#al pers&asions. 3n addition, peasants provided fertile gro&nd for #onfli#ts Bithin the elite, as different parties defended their progra+s by identifying the+ Bith the peasants and the *ation. Fro&ps a##&sed one another of betraying the *ation, its national +ission, and.or its peasant +asses 0e.g., 'obridor 197$L =adg#ar& 19612. Politi#ians and philosophers alike spoke for and against the idea of a @peasant state@ and &plifting the village, and Briters insisted that the national essen#e Bas to be fo&nd in the p&rity of peasant so&ls. Co++on to +any of these arg&+ents Bas the distan#e #reated betBeen the peasantry and its elite spokes+en/a denial of @#oevalness@ betBeen peasants and the persons Briting abo&t the+ 0se# "abian 19872. "or e4a+ple, peasants Bere seen as inhabiting a spa#e &nto&#hed by ti+e, he village has not let itself be te+pted and draBn into the @history@ +ade by others over o&r heads. 3t has preserved itself #hastely, &nto&#hed in the a&ton% A* ECE'E* 1 $; o+y Bith Bhi#h poverty and +ydiology have endoBed it, and aBaits die ti+e Bhen it Bill serve as the s&re fo&ndation of an a&thenti#ally !o+anian history 0Blaga 1985 U197;S, 6$82. W he peasant re+ains W on the sa+e pat#h of soil, generation after generation, #onfined in the i++obility ot the sa+e destiny, Bhile o&tside his radi&s every% thing is in perpet&al #hange. . . . Peasant life has no history. 3t absorbs itself in nat&re. B&t like the seeds that lie in nat&re-s breast, like the +inerals hidden in die folds of the earth, the e+bers of possibility s+o&lder in this pri+itive life 0Craini# 197:, 892. Alternatively, peasants Bere rendered @ba#kBard,@ @ignorant,@ in need of #&lt&re, U he #hanges of Eorld Ear 3V bro&ght abo&t the #onditions for transfor+ing serfs into #itiIens. 3t re+ains to give die+ the #&lt&re ne#essary for the+ to be#o+e E&ropeans. "ro+ noB on dlis +&st lie the task of those Bho aspire to raising !o+ania &p to the level of the Bestern #o&ntries 03brail#an& 1977, 82. he #&lt&re peasants re<&ired Bo&ld, of #o&rse, enlarge the ed&#ational apparat&s and e+ploy +ore intelle#t&als, 79 Bho Bo&ld by their ed&#ational a#tivities f&rther intensify the bases of their oBn legiti+ation, a##eptan#e of

tli# #entral val&e of knoBledge 0Ba&+an 198;Y, 182. his dis#&rsiv# interest in the peasantry a##o+plished several things, 3 s&ggest, akin to dis#&rsiv# interests in Bo+en, in other ti+es and pla#es 0se#, for e4a+ple, Poovey 198:L 1#ott 19882, it distan#ed and silen#ed the+, and it rendered the+ an open field for intelle#t&als and the state to #oloniIe. he distan#ing and silen#ing are e+inently visible in those <&otations that re+ove peasants fro+ ti+e, as Bell as in a so#iologist-s angry a##&sation that so+e Briters, so elo<&ent on the peasantry-s @boy#ott@ of history, had never done resear#h in a village to find o&t Bhat real peasants a#t&ally tho&ght abo&t anything.9@ he for+s of distan#ing varied fro+ one gro&p to another, b&t nearly all had the effe#t of inviting the state in and giving it Bork to do, and of Bidening the #has+ betBeen the peasants and those Bho #lai+ed to speak in their defense. 1o+e #riti#s on the left #hose to point this o&t, he intelle#t&al elite seeks to have entr&sted to the+ the fate of o&r people 0politi#al poBer, therefore2 be#a&se 012 they ar# s&perior, 062 they ar# benevolent, 072 the +asses ar# in#apable of leading the+selves on their oBn or thro&gh their oBn representatives 0Pa&n 197$, 92. Behind the #elebrations of peasant inno#en#e, the +any proposals for refor+ of the #o&ntryside, and the rhetori# of disinterested #on#ern, $8 A* ECE'E* 1 then, lies a #elebration of the peasantry-s elite patrons, set fir+ly apart on the far side of a #lass barrier.91 3t Bo&ld be &nBise to arg&e that all parties to the debates on identity Bere playing the sa+e role, for ea#h Bas so+eBhat differently positioned in the #&lt&ral.politi#al field and therefore offered its oBn spe#ial n&an#e to the national id#ology%in%for+ation. Eith the help of tBo ast&te analyses of Pop&lis+ and its p&bli#ation, !o+anian Life 0Al#4%andres#& 198;L Fheorghi& 198$a2, Be gain a gli+pse into hoB general ideologi#al pro#esses Bere pro#eeding in very parti#&lar Bays. he Pop&list +ove+ent, together Bith the related Peasantists, Bas the +ost i+portant of several gro&ps that #entered their politi#al progra+ on the peasantry. Ale4andr#s#& 0198;2 #ontends, hoBever, that 1tere-s Pop&lists, altho&gh arg&ing abo&t the sit&ation of and best poli#ies for the peasantry, Bere speaking Bith the voi#e of the Xpetite robe@/ s+all f&n#tionaries, lo#al b&rea&#rats, village priests and tea#hers 0as opposed to th#grandf robe of high f&n#tionaries, +agistrates, &niversity professors, and so forth2. heir progra+ defended, &nder another g&ise, the spa#e Bithin Bhi#h a r&ral and &rban petite bo&rgeoisie o&ght to for+. heir #on#ern Bith obsta#les to the so#ial advan#e+ent of the peasantry aptly sy+boliIed the obsta#les to their oBn e4er#ise of poBer Bithin the e4isting ele#toral syste+ and, +ore generally, of the obsta#les to the for+ation of a +iddle #lass betBeen the peasant +asses and the ri#h 0ibid., 672/parti#&larly in =oldavia, Bhere the +ove+ent began. hey spoke of @the peasantry,@ yet their progra+s pro+oted the differentiation of peasants into a Bealthier strat&+ and a still%i+poverished +ass. h&s, Ale4andr#s#& arg&es, they defended s+all or +edi&+ peasant property, rather than general peasant interests. Al#4andres#& also points to an interesting feat&re of 1t#r#-s Pop&lis+, its proposal that the @third estate@ to be #reated betBeen peasant +asses and the poBerf&l sho&ld have the f&n#tion not of #reating ri#hes b&t of so#ial

#o++&ni#ation/of #reating !o+anian literat&re and #&lt&re 0Ale4andr#s#& 198;, 6;%682. Here Al#4andres#&-s analysis Noins Bith that of Fheorghi& 0198$\2, Bho arg&es that the entire strategy p&rs&ed by !o+anian Life s&ggests a progra+ for a&tono+iIing the #&lt&ral sphere and pro+oting the @pri+itive a##&+&lation@ of !o+anian #&lt&ral #apital Bithin a prote#ted internal +arket. Basi# to this Bere arg&+ents that separated #&lt&re fro+ politi#s, +aking intelle#t&als the g&ardians of +orality that a #orr&pt politi#s had abandoned 0Fheorghi& 198$\, 1792. his #onstit&ted a for+ of #apital to Bhi#h 3brailean&, on behalf of a #ertain disposition Bithin the intelligentsia as A* ECE'E* 1 $9 a Bhole, laid #lai+ and Bhi#h he so&ght to prote#t by arg&ing for an aestheti# that privileged an art based on ethni# the+es. 3brailean& and !o+anian Life p&rs&ed this arg&+ent in vario&s Bays. Dne Bas to Noin the #riti<&e of !o+ania-s di#hoto+iIed #lass str&#t&re Bith an a##o&nt of Bhy !o+ania-s #onta#t Bith Bestern #&lt&re had bro&ght so feB benefits. he editorial state+ent in the No&rnal-s first iss&e, N&stifying its progra+, did this as folloBs, D&r sit&ation is not N&st ba#kBard, Bhi#h Bo&ld be bad eno&ghL it is abnor+al, Bhi#h is Borse. he &pper #lasses are s&spended in die air, Bitho&t #onta#t Bith the people beloB, Bhi#h is in o&r #o&ntry the only positive #lass and Bhi#h has preserved a #leaner !o+anian so&l. BetBeen die &pper #lasses and the people is a deep abyss, Bhi#h in o&r #ase separates Bhat are effe#tively tBo nations. he &pper #lasses aspire only to Bestern #&lt&re, Bith Bhi#h the people have no #onta#t, and be#a&se they are divor#ed fro+ the !o+anian people the &pper #lasses do not assi+ilate Uthat #&lt&reV . . . U"oreign #&lt&re, instead of being absorbed by &s, absorbs &s, assi+ilates &s. his is the reason for the ini+i#al stan#e of so+e%people to foreign #&lt&re _(iafa ro+aneas#a 195:, $%:, original e+phases2. Ehat !o+anian #&lt&re needs, this editorial i+plies, is a neB #lass so organi#ally tied to its people that it #an assi+ilate the benefits of Bestern #iviliIation Bitho&t being overBhel+ed. A+ong the pres#riptions for forging s&#h a tie is to pro+ote ethni# the+es in art. his pres#ription is #&lt&rally @prote#tionist@ pre#isely in the a&dien#e it pres&pposes and the indigeno&s #&lt&ral prod&#tion it thereby prote#ts. 3nstead of f&rthering the #ir#&lation on !o+ania-s internal +arket of the foreign #&lt&ral prod&#ts that already do+inate it, instead of i+itating Bestern #&lt&re, say these #&lt&ral pop&lists, Be +&st #reate o&r oBn. Fheorghi&-s translation of this progra+, Be +&st +ove fro+ a si+ple to an e4panded reprod&#tion of #&lt&ral #apital, nationaliIing it and its prod&#tion rather than getting #apital fro+ abroad by theft 0Fheorghi& 198$a, 1792. 3n this respe#t, the gro&p Bas in perfe#t #onsonan#e Bith the prote#tionis+ of the Liberal party Bith Bhi#h 1t#r#-s Pop&lists had +erged in 1899. 3t Bas not only !o+anian Life that advo#ated s&#h a #o&rse, +ost of the indig#nist arg&+ents abo&t the national essen#e did so as Bell. EveryBhere one finds arti#les fro+ this period arg&ing that !o+anians +&st have their oBn intelle#t&al prod&#tion, +&st ed&#ate the peasants Bith things !o+anians prod&#e rather than Bith the prod&#ts of #&lt&ral i+perialis+. Craini#, #o+plaining that pro%Bestern @int#ll##%t&alists@ 0he #ontests their #lai+ to intelle#t&al stat&s2 are advo#ating #&lt&ral #ons&+ption, observes,

:5 A* ECE'E* 1 3t is an attit&de dift#renr fro+ o&rs. raditionalis+ de+ands a #&lt&re #reative of a&to#hthono&s val&es, o&r oBn #&lt&ral #reation. his does not e4#l&de #&l% t&ral #ons&+ption b&t i+plies it, a##ording it the s&bordinate stat&s it o&ght to have. ... A people-s p&rpose in this Borld is not to W #ons&+e2 b&t to #reate, to #reate Bhat others have not be#a&se no other people has that parti#&lar #reation in its nat&re 0Craini# 1969, 62. Dther indig#nist gro&ps #a+paigned to have a ta4 pla#ed on all foreign books 0(ran##a 19:$, 1592. his Bas, indeed, the #o++on deno+inator linking indigenists Bith the BesterniIing !o+anian Lift, to prote#t the #onditions for #&lt&ral prod&#tion. S&st as the basi# proble+ for politi#al e#ono+y Bas. Ehat #onditions sho&ld govern !o+ania-s ind&strial and agri#&lt&ral prod&#tionK, the basi# proble+ for literati, philosophers, and other thinkers Bas, Ehat #onditions sho&ld govern the prod&#tion of #&lt&reK he #ir#&+stan#es in Bhi#h s&#h arg&+ent Bas o##&rring Bere, of #o&rse, the #ir#&+stan#es of a s+all and &nder#apitaliIed #o&ntry trying to #reate the instr&+ents for its advan#e+ent 01aiI& 1981, 81:2, Bhile gro&ps differently pla#ed in so#iety arg&ed over hoB that +ight best be done. 3t Bas a so#iety Bhose Beak ta4 base virt&ally ne#essitated foreign borroBing to s&pport the #ost of a state b&rea&#ra#y, @oversiIed@ be#a&se state e+ploy+ent gave +ore #ertain livelihood than e#ono+i# a#tivity 0Sanos 19;8, 15;/1582. Even so, the b&rea&#ra#y #o&ld not absorb all the people its ed&#ational syste+ prod&#ed, nor pay the+ ade<&ately despite disb&rsing $: per#ent of the total b&dget for the salaries of state e+ployees 0ibid., 1582. he res&lt Bas a str&ggle for the positions and the reso&r#es that e4isted, efforts by prod&#ers of #&lt&re to prote#t the+selves fro+ the vagaries of +arket #o+petition, and #ontin&ed #alls &pon the state to do +ore for #&lt&re 0se#, e.g., Antipa 1967, 7%9L LiveI#an& 198:, 65:L 1ai4& 19812. "or h&+anist intelle#t&als, the str&ggle Bas all the +ore intense given that in the years after the Bar there Bas a general drift of state f&nds toBard s#ien#e and e#ono+i#s, Bhi#h #o&ld #ontrib&te to rationaliIing the e#ono+y that politi#ians had deter+ined to ind&strialiIe. 1aiI& 019812 des#ribes this #onte4t, in Bhi#h reso&r#es for literati, philosophers, theologians, perhaps even ethnograph#rs and historians, began losing gro&nd to those for e#ono+i#s, so#iology, #he+istry, and other hard and applied s#ien#es. BetBeen 1966 and 196; the !o+anian 1o#iety of 1#ien#e reorganiIed all its hard%s#ien#e se#tionsL several proposals Bere floated for reorganiIing the !o+anian A#ade+y to dire#t all s#ientifi# resear#h at the national level. 3n 1979 it Bas proposed A* ECE'E* 1 :1 that the +ission of the A#ade+y &ntil that ti+e/en#o&raging #&lt&ral a#tivity/ be red&#ed to si+ply reBarding Borks of high <&ality Bith priIes, and that the A#ade+y-s +ore a#tive g&idan#e go to dire#ting s#ientifi# Bork 01aiI& 1981, 8192. he neB e+phasis on progress in s#ien#e led to the fo&nding of resear#h instit&tes separate fro+ &niversity tea#hing, intended 0in one s#holar-s Bords2 to be @the +ost poBerf&l fortifi#ations for defending the nation and for &ndrea+ed%of in#reases in the for#es of end&ran#e of o&r nation and state@ 0Antipa 1995, ;2.

Also str&ggling for a share in reso&r#es Bere spokes+en for the Drthodo4 Ch&r#h. his in#l&des not N&st Craini# 0a theologian, it sho&ld be re+e+bered2 b&t other #leri#s, spirit&al des#endants of the eighteenth%#ent&ry @fathers@ of !o+anian national ideology. 3nterBar #onditions s&bNe#ted the #h&r#h, too, that self%pro#lai+ed an#ient bastion of !o+anian identity, to greater strains on its Bell%being. *ot only did it &ndergo internal &pheaval fro+ the &nion Bith differently organiIed Drthodo4 #h&r#hes in the neB provin#es, b&t it and the #onditions of its finan#ing Bere pla#ed +ore fir+ly &nder state #ontrol. he landed properties and levels of f&nding set for !o+ania-s +aNor #reeds Bere relatively +ore advantageo&s for other faiths tlian for Drthodo4y 0*istor 197$, 11/162,16 as Bere the salaries fi4ed for priests and the s&bventions allotted for spe#ifi# p&rposes 0ibid., 6$/6:L Edit&ra 3n%stit&t&l&i Bibli# 19$;, :5:2. Protestant deno+inations Bere +aking a #on#erted evangeliIing effort in !o+ania d&ring these sa+e years. Arg&+ents arose in Parlia+ent betBeen Drthodo4 bishops and the =inister of !eligion, the for+er #o+plaining abo&t the level of #h&r#h f&nds fro+ the state/seen as eviden#e of ins&ffi#ient love for the *ation, inattention to the people-s so&l, and a threat to !o+anian #iviliIation/ Bhereas the latter pointed to the state-s e4ha&sted b&dget and the n&+ero&s #lai+s on its finan#es, inade<&ate to the bishops- re<&ests.@ Under these #ir#&+stan#es, it is s#ar#ely s&rprising that persons s&#h as theology professors Craini# and 1taniloae 0another Drthodo4ist2 defended the #h&r#h by inserting it into the heart of the *ation. 1e#&lar intelle#t&als, feeding in part fro+ the sa+e state tro&gh, logi#ally reNoined that be#a&se Drthodo42- Bas not restri#ted to !o+anians, it #o&ld not define their national identity. 1o+e dire#tly atta#ked the #lai+s of #h&r#h+en and their allies that the #h&r#h had preserved !o+anian identity thro&gh #ent&ries of d##&lt&rating foreign r&le, he Drthodo4 Ch&r#h is and has been perpet&ated as foreign. "aith +anifests itself in a#tsL the Drthodo4 faith is not represented by a single !o+anian Dr% thodo4 a#t in a single do+ain of religio&s appli#ation, +ira#les, proselvtis+, :6 A* ECE'E* 1 oratory, Briting, propaganda, sa#rifi#es. *ot a single initiative beg&n &nder the sign of a religio&s senti+ent W has been !o+anian in its #hara#ter W 0Argh#4i 19682. 3n a si+ilar vein, see also the #o++ents of Constantin#s#& 0beloB2. 1&#h Briters so&ght to #apt&re the *ation fro+ the grip of the #h&r#h Bith die fa+iliar a##&sation of @foreign borroBing.@ Dthers Bent so far as to #lai+ that the a#tions of the #h&r#h had i+poverished the people and i+peded the national +ission 0e.g., Fhib& 19692. hey a##&sed the #h&r#h of fostering the people-s ignoran#e thro&gh +ysti#al and irrational pra#ti#es. Cleri#s +ight have fo&nded the national ideology, these #riti#s arg&ed, b&t only their se#&lar offspring/intelle#t&als, the b&ilders of s#ien#e and knoBledge/#o&ld be entr&sted Bith the *ation-s interests in the +odern Borld Bhere !eason, not s&perstition, reigns. he *ation-s intelle#t&al g&ardians so+eti+es even arrogated &nto their oBn proNe#ts the lang&age of the #h&r#h, #onsider the title and agenda of !ad&l#s#&%=otr&-s 197: !o+anianis+, Cate#his+ of a *eB 1pirit&ality, Bhi#h ai+ed to develop a national ideology resting on !eason as against the +ysti#is+ of religion. he lang&age of the #o+petition in Bhi#h all Bere lo#ked e+phasiIed different

#lai+s to represent the interests and the @proper@ #&lt&ral val&es of the !o+anian *ation. 3ndeed, this is pre#isely Bhat Bas at iss&e in arg&ing over !o+anian identity, Bhose definition Bo&ld prove the +ost effi#a#io&s in #lai+ing reso&r#es, Bhose #&lt&ral progra+ Bas @really@ serving foreign interests rather than !o+anian interests, Bhose No&rnals did or did not deserve state s&bsidiesK 3n 1971, !ad&l#s#&%=otr& la&n#hed an atta#k on the +ysti#oid tenden#ies of the Drtho%do4ists and de+anded that their No&rnals no longer re#eive govern+ent s&bventions 0Drn#a 1985, 6992. Positions on the national essen#e%tended to be#o+e identified Bith parti#&lar p&bli#ations, Bhi#h then pro+oted the na+es and Bork of their #ontrib&torsL set &p +eetings and a#tivitiesL soli#ited s&bs#riptions, ads, and s&bsidies/Bhi#h they so+eti+es obtained fro+ the govern+ent or fro+ banks. he pool of reso&r#es to s&pport all this intelle#t&al a#tivity Bas shalloB and the aspirants +any. he *ation and its defense Bere a Bay of sho&ldering others aside, as not nationally representative. "ro+ all sides, not only fro+ indig#nists, a##&sations of @foreign borroBing@ and @i+itation@ rang o&t, he traditionalis+ of =r. Craini# takes its no+ad-s tent toBard the Drient and byIantinis+, invoking in s&pport of a&to#hthono&s traditionalis+ )#yserling, A* ECE'E* 1 :7 Una+&no, and Berdia#ff. Here Be see die sophistry of this tradition of i+ported rhetori#, of i+itation thro&gh the panslavi# apo#alypse. . . . UCraini#-sV tradition has e4#o++&ni#ated &s for o&r adheren#e to the Latin idea, only to prote#t &s Bith Una+&no and B#rdiaeffL it has strangled o&r Latin reality only to s&ffo#ate &s in orientalist Beeds, and it has #r&#ified &s for negating the people, only to affir+ the people for &s in ByIanti&+ 0P. Constantines#& 1969, 179%17$2. aken &p th&s by different gro&ps, these a##&sations be#a+e per+anent Beapons of e4#o++&ni#ation in the #&lt&ral sphere.

#nte""ectua"s and the $iscip"ines%

his Bas the environ+ent/one of b&dgetary #onstraints and #o+petition on the one hand, and ed&#ational e4pansion on the other/Bithin Bhi#h +e+bers of vario&s a#ade+i# dis#iplines arg&ed over the national essen#e. 3n so doing, they #ontrib&ted to the instit&tionaliIation of their a#tivity in a Bay <&ite different fro+ the prote#tionis+ dis#&ssed earlier, they prod&#ed the str&#t&res Bithin Bhi#h they +ight #ontin&e to arg&e, so+eti+es defending the *ation against those Bho #lai+ed to serve its interests thro&gh state politi#s. hat is, the debates a#tively #reated part of the +aterial infrastr&#t&re that Bo&ld s&stain talk abo&t the *ation, and in this Bay they f&rther solidified the !o+anian national ideology. 3n part thro&gh these arg&+ents, a#ade+i# dis#iplines Bere #onsolidated and differentiated, &niversity depart+ents and #hairs established, resear#h instit&tes set &p, and p&bli#ations s&bsidiIed. he very +aterial of the dis#o&rse on nationality provided a +eans for dis#iplinary proliferation. 3 do not #ontend that the national dis#o&rse #a&sed this proliferation, for dis#iplines Bere being established in all Bestern #o&ntries d&ring this period and not alBays thro&gh nationalis+. 3 arg&e only that the +edi&+ Bithin Bhi#h this larger pro#ess Bas o##&rring in !o+ania Bas the lang&age of the *ation 0rather than a lang&age of s#ien#e or of so#ial progress, for e4a+ple2, and this fa#t had #onse<&en#es for s&bse<&ent s#holarly a#tivity.

he pro#ess of dis#iplinary groBth and differentiation in !o+ania in#l&ded #lai+s and #o&nt#r#lai+s that one or another dis#ipline had s&perior #apa#ity to treat aspe#ts of the national identity. ypi#al of s&#h #lai+s is the folloBing rationale one Briter offered to pro+ote a dis#ipline ofethnopsy#hology distin#t fro+ ethnology, @Ethnology has to do only Bith e4ternalities, distrib&tions, kinship, +igrations, #&sto+sL it does not o##&py itself Bith the resid&es all these #hanges leave in the spirit of the people, Bith the psy#hologi#al s&bstrate@ Ui+por% :9 A* ECE'E* 1 tant +atters that a dis#ipline of #thnopsy#hology Bo&ld treat/k.v.N 0E+ines#&, #ited in Bab&%B&4n#a 19;9, 15$ n.62. 3n +aking #lai+s of this sort, 3 +&st e+phasiIe, s#holars Bere not #ons#io&sly and intentionally +anip&lating the national idea in the interests of e4panding their t&rf. 3f their t&rf did nonetheless e4pand, this Bas +ost probably &nintended and shoBs the +aterial #onse<&en#es of the national ideology !o+anian intelle#t&als Bere prod&#ing. he e4a+ples one #o&ld add&#e to ill&strate this pro#ess ar# so n&+ero&s that so+e sele#tion +&st be +ade. 3 Bill begin by shoBing hoB the internal definition and the e4ternal bo&ndaries of so#iology +ight involve the *ation, and Bill then give so+e additional e4a+ples fro+ philosophy and psy#hology. B&t 3 note in advan#e that virt&ally any a#ade+i# dis#ipline #o&ld lay #lai+ to spe#ial reso&r#es on the gro&nds of its relationship to the *ation. 1&#h arg&+ents Bere as available for biology 0the st&dy of the ethni# body2, geography 0the st&dy of the territory that defines the national so&l and infl&en#es the national #hara#ter by its physi#al for+s2, or applied s#ien#e 0the parti#&lars of soil, #li+ate, pop&lation, et#. Bhi#h Bill be ne#essary to solving the *ation-s spe#ifi# proble+s Use# Antipa 1995, $12 as for so#iology 0the s#ien#e of the *ation2, history 0the st&dy of the *ation-s past2, or psy#hology 0the st&dy of the national psy#he2. o begin Bith, the *ation and debates abo&t it #o&ld enter into divergent definitions of a given dis#ipline, s&#h as so#iology. Dne observer divides the interBar so#iologi#al field into three #a+ps/the national%refor+ist, the national #&lt&ral, and the e4tre+e right/Bhose leaders arg&ed a+ong the+selves fro+ different #ities on both s#ientifi# and politi#al gro&nds. !o+anian so#iology . . . Bas the terrain of an i+pli#it and e4pli#it ideologi#al battle #entering on the proble+ not so +&#h of the nation in general as of the !o+anian nation #onfronted Bith internal so#ial #ontradi#tions, tested by the plag&e of fas#is+, and threatened by e4ternal perils 0=ih& 1989Y, $182. he e4ponent of the first #a+p and interBar !o+ania-s +ost fa+o&s so#iologist, '. F&sti, defined his agenda th&s, U1o#iology as W a positive s#ien#e, that is, oriented to fa#ts, #annot fail to #on % sider the hierar#hy of proble+s posed by reality itself. "ro+ the +o+ent that the nation reveals itself to &s as the +ost signifi#ant for+ of +odern so#ial life, the s#ien#e of so#iety/so#iology/+&st #onstit&te itself as the s#ien#e ot die nation. . . . he s#ien#e of the nation Bill deter+ine tor it the edii#s and politi#s thro&gh Bhi#h the people Bill find its tr&e road to self%realiIation. . . . his s#i% A* ECE'E* 1 :$ en## Bill enable &s to establish, at last, die tr&e national ideal, Bhi#h Bill not

+ean an estrange+ent, a depart&re fro+ the histori#al padi of the people b&t a +a4i+&+ develop+ent toBard the f&lfill+ent of all its nat&ral #apa#ities 0F&sti 19:8 1197;V, 997, $5:2. 3n the na+e of dis#overing the e4a#t #hara#ter of !o+anian so#ial reality so as to deter+ine the people-s tr&e path and then to press for appropriate so#ial refor+s, he developed a #o+ple4 theoreti#al and +#thod%ologi#al syste+ and set the lands#ape #raBling Bith so#iologi#al resear#hers. F&sti-s definition of so#iology did not go &n#hallenged. His for+er st&dent P. Andr#i, a+ong others, arg&ed that the s#ien#e of so#iology sho&ld be +ore than si+ply a des#riptive and +#thodologi#ally narroB so#iography, b&ilt &pon inn&+erable village +onographs and ai+ed at so#ial refor+ 0=ih& 1989Y, $682. 3t sho&ld &se the data of !o+anian so#ial life toBard larger theoreti#al ends. Andr#i Bas deeply read in philosophy and +ade a so#iophilosophi#al #on#ern Bith #&lt&ral val&es a +aNor part of his Bork, seeing his obNe#tive as the general st&dy of so%#lo#&lt&ral life. Even Bithin this broader vision of so#iology, hoBever, he too settled &pon the *ation, he s&pre+e ideal of #&lt&re sho&ld refer to the Bhole of h&+anity, and sho&ld be to bring abo&t a #&lt&red h&+anity Bitho&t borders .... As a res&lt, the bearer of this s&pre+e ideal of #&lt&re Bo&ld have to be h&+anity as a Bhole. B&t sin#e this is too large, at least for o&r ti+e, Bhat re+ains as the real s&b% strate, as the a#tive s&bNe#t, as the so#ial personality that a#hieves #&lt&ral val&e is the nation 0Andr#i 199$, 67:%67;, original e+phasis2.99 h&s, even for Andrei the dis#ipline Bas to be defined in large part by its relation to the *ation, &nderstood +ore in the abstra#t than in the #on#rete, !o+anian, sense.1$ he *ation and its proper treat+ent #o&ld be#o+e the basis for #ontrasting visions and #lai+s &pon reso&r#es not si+ply Bithin the dis#ipline itself b&t also a#ross the border betBeen so#iology and other dis#iplines 0a#ross any s&#h borders2. Against F&sti-s definition of so#iology, #onsider a state+ent by a partisan of psy#hology, 3f o&r so#iology is relatively far advan#ed be#a&se, thanks to Uo&r best re% sear#hers W Be knoB aspe#ts of +e for+ation and f&n#tioning of so+e of o&t% #lasses/the nobility, the gentry, the peasantry, and the bo&rgeoisie/, !o+a% nian psy#hology #ontains not one single #hapter, has gathered +aterial for not one single proble+, be#a&se no one has yet posed a proble+ tor it. And yet no one Bo&ld disagree that !o+anian psy#hology is every bit as ne#essary as !o% +anian so#iology 0!alea 1997, 812. :: A* ECE'E* 1 his s#holar then +akes #lear that the proper obNe#t for this sorry dis#i pline is the st&dy of ethni# psy#hology. 3n his reading, so#iology really has little to do Bith the national essen#e as s&#h, rather, its proper obNe#t is the so#ial str&#t&re of the national so#iety. "or hi+, a better #lai+ to treating the national essen#e ade<&ately is offered by psy#hology. Arg&ing so#iology-s s&periority to ethnography, another s#holar noted that the rise of national #ons#io&sness bro&ght an interest in folklore, Bhi#h Bas e4pe#ted to @enlighten o&r &nderstanding of the nat&re and destiny of the !o+anian people@ b&t has prod&#ed nothing of s#ientifi# i+portan#e 0H#rs#ni 1991, $2. He e4plains this by the inade<&a#y of folklore as a dis#ipline, both +#thodologi#ally 0it is too &n%syste+ati#2 and s#i#ntifi#ally 0it la#ks rigor2,

Colle#tions +ade at rando+, by persons f&ll of Ieal b&t la#king s#ientifi# train % ing, deepen the national senti+ent +ore than they enhan#e knoBledge of eth% ni# reality and therefore have +ore an ed&#ational and politi#al than a s#ientifi# val&e 0ibid., $2. "or s#ientifi# knoBledge of ethni# reality, he #lai+s, so#iology is vastly preferable to ethnography and folklore, it is +ore than +erely a s#ien#e of things, as ethnography often is, and the ass&+ptions it rests on +ake it a better tool than other dis#iplines for resear#hing the !o+anian people, @Dnly in #ollaboration Bith so#iology #an ethnography and folklore satisfa#torily f&lfill their task@ 0ibid., 172. An espe#ially lively disp&te #on#erned the border betBeen so#iology. ethnography and philosophyL its protagonists Bere so#iologist H#nri 1tahl and philosopher L&#ian Blaga. Blaga p&blished in the 1975s a philosophy of #&lt&re that theoriIed the national essen#e and linked it Bith peasants, village life, and folklore. 3n response, 1tahl flatly reNe#ted Blaga-s proposals and #ontended that so#iologists and ethnograph#rs had offered far +ore pla&sible a##o&nts of the ele+ents of folk life that Blaga #lai+ed to interpret. 1tahl took parti#&lar offens# at Blaga-s spe#&lating &pon the !o+anian village Bitho&t a#t&ally st&dying it by any other than ar+#hair +eansL he resented Blaga-s arrogant ass&+ption that be#a&se the @!o+anian pheno+enon@ has nothing to do Bith real histori#al ti+e or so#iologi#al spa#e, philosophy is the only Bay to st&dy it. DbNe#ting to the i+pli#it so#iology in Blaga-s philosophy of #&lt&re, 1tahl #o++ents sar#asti#ally, =odern so#iology affir+s that any fa#t of so#ial life takes a #ertain for+ on a##o&nt of a series of fa#tors U environ+ental, biologi#al, psy#hologi#al, and so forth/k.v.V that deter+ine one another r##ipro#ally . . . =r. Blaga, on the A* ECE'E* 1 :; other hand, finds that so#ial pheno+ena have only a single laB, styleX Bhi#h spring-s fro+ a single s#ries of fa#tors, die &n#ons#io&s. . . . B&t Be find #riti% #is+ of =r. Blaga-s so#iology not only N&stified b&t i+perative, for in the present day Be liave e+barked &pon syste+ati# resear#h into the history and for+s of !o+anian pop&lar #&lt&re. Ee have barely #rossed the threshold of the +ost abNe#t ignoran#e and beholdA right in o&r path lies an &ne4pe#ted ob% sta#le, p&t there by the enti#ing for+&las of the philosophy of #&lt&re . . . UBhi#h Bants to +akeV any f&rther s+dy of die !o+anian pheno+enon s&per% fl&o&s. =r. Blaga has given &s the key to the proble+, the style of any !o+a% nian #reation is e4plained for &s by his stylisti# +atri4. . . . he tho&ghtless #ase UBith Bhi#hV he br&shes aside s#ientifi# resear#h and all other do+ains b&r the philosophy of #&lt&re irritates those of &s Bho do s#ientifi# field resear#h, and Be Bill fight against it 01tahl 197;, 9912. 3n later essays, even less polite in tone than those of the 1975s, 1tahl obNe#ts in so +any Bords to Blaga-s #lai+ to @+onopoliIe knoBledge of the !o+anian #&lt&ral pheno+enon@ 01987a, ;82. Ehereas so#iologists +ight entBine their dis#ipline aro&nd the *ation, others Bith an aversion to so#iology +ight pry it loose. Craini#, for e4a+ple, gave an intervieB Bith his opinions on Lovines#&-s History of =odern !o+anian CiviliIationX Bhi#h he read as a Bork of @so#iologi#al deter+inis+@, his so#iologi#al deter+inis+ is nothing less than the obliteration of the ethni#

personality. 3t is a pessi+isti# and erroneo&s tea#hing Bhi#h the vigor of o&r yo&ng nation, still in sear#h of the original e4pression of its #&lt&re, +&st reNe#t. ... 3 do not believe that so#iology is a s#ien#e Bidi iron%#lad laBs before Bhi#h an entire people +&st s&b+it, as before a gri+ fatality 01oi+ar& 196$, 62. As Be have already seen, Craini# Bas o&t to e4propriate all b&t religio&s and perhaps philosophi#al #&ltivators of the national essen#e. 3ndeed, to the e4tent that he a##epted philosophy at all, his Bay of defining the essen#e reserved that dis#ipline effe#tively to hi+self, for +ost other philosophers Borked Bithin a rationalist tradition o&tlaBed by Craini#-s Bo&ld%be Drthodo4is+. He #riti#iIed the @s#ientifi# philosophy@ ot !ad&les#&%=otr&, for instan#e, #lai+ing that Drthodo4y Bas !o+anian philosophy-s only #han#eL and one of his dis#iples #ontended that good !o+anian philosophy Bo&ld res&lt only fro+ st&dying the @so&l of the people@ in the for+ of r&sti# spirit&ality 0se# Drnea 1985, 689%68$2. E4tended arg&+ents entBining the *ation Bith a different kind of philosophy fro+ Craini#-s #a+e fro+ Blaga and !ad&les#&%=otr&, the :8 A* ECE'E* 1 latter in parti#&lar ai+ing to develop a philosophy and a psy#hology of the *ation as his goal. 3nstead of trying to s&++ariIe their lengthy and #o+ple4 Borks, hoBever, 3 Bill +ake the sa+e point Bith the briefer and very &n&s&al arg&+ent that philosopher (. Ban#ila proposed, in an arti#le entitled @ he A&to#hthoniIation of Philosophy@ 0196;2. he proble+ Ban#ila poses is hoB one gets fro+ i+itating Bestern for+s to #reating lo#al val&es and thereby to the #reation of a&to#hthono&s traditions in s#ien#e, literat&re, and other dis#iplines. He observes that the first spheres of !o+anian #&lt&re to be th&s @a&to#hthoniIed@ Bere literat&re and then history, both of the+ draBing fro+ the Eest the +odels and <&estions Bith Bhi#h they treated !o+anian the+es. Philosophy Bas late in this pro#ess, for philosophy is the highest e4pression of self%knoBledge 0Ban#ila 196;, 6;92, and this re<&ires long e4perien#e, a##&+&lation of knoBledge, and refle#tion &pon it. Philosophy, he #lai+s, #annot be b&ilt on i+itation. Dn#e a&to#hthoniIed, hoBever, philosophy has the +ost i+portant role in any so#iety-s #&lt&ral life, to &nify the different bran#hes of #&lt&reX to organiIe the +aterial other dis#iplines prod&#e into a general har+ony/a s&per%dis#ipline 0ibid., 6;$%6;:2. "or this reason, no develop+ent in !o+anian #&lt&re Bill be of greater val&e than the a&to#hthoniIation of philosophy, for no other field enNoys s&#h &nifying a&thority or enables #o++&ni#ation a#ross all of intelle#t&al life. Having in this Bay +ade philosophy the heavy ind&stry of intelle#t&al prod&#tion/one that &ses the raB +aterials of history, ethnography, literat&re and so forth, nationaliIes their res&lts, and #on#entrates their #&lt&ral #apital/ Ban#ila pro#eeds to a +ore st&nning set of #lai+s. Dnly after philosophy is a&to#hthoniIed Bill #ertain other dis#iplines 0e.g., psy#hology and theology2 even be#o+e possible, for only on#e an a&to#hthono&s philosophy e4ists Bill the *ation be f&lly for+ed. hat is, only philosophy enables the final &nifi#ation of the !o+anian people. @S&st as individ&al #hara#ter a#hieves &nity . . . only after lengthy refle#tion has re+ade it, so peoples a#hieve a #lear and &nitary psy#hology only after a philosophi#al #&lt&re has re+ade the+@ 0ibid., 6;:% 6;;2. Philosophy Bill &nify and shape the national psy#he, helping to generate

a @!o+anian spirit,@ Bhi#h an indigeno&s psy#hology #an then st&dy 0there having been hitherto no &nified obNe#t for s&#h a s#ien#e2. h&s, philosophy as @heavy ind&stry@ 0+y ter+2 generates f&rther #&lt&ral #apital in the for+ of not N&st neB dis#iplines b&t a neB obNe#t of investigation and so#ial a#tion, the people itself, finally #o+plete. He #on#l&des, A* ECE'E* 1 :9 D&r philosophy +&st re#ogniIe the responsibility it bears thro&gh its sing&lar i+portan#e for the f&t&re of !o+anian #&lt&re and so#iety. his #&lt&re and so#iety #annot enter a higher phase of its oBn #onstinition Bitho&t an a&to#h% thono&s philosophy . . . 0Ban#ila 196;, 6;92. 3t is hard to i+agine a +ore re+arkable vindi#ation for a dis#ipline-s priority Bith respe#t to its *ation and its *ation-s #&lt&ral f&t&re. A final e4a+ple, this one fro+ ethnography, shoBs hoB the *ation, its defense, and a dis#ipline +ight be linked Bith e4pansionary pro#esses f&rthered by st&dy of the national essen#e, 3t is a+aIing hoB all the dis#iplines that st&dy the people/history, philology, geography, and so forth/have #reated spe#ial instit&tes in all the &niversitiesL only ethnography has nothing b&t a &niversity depart+ent. . . . W He lists so+e #a&ses of this dis+al state of affairs.V h&s postBar arrivis+e has led to the perversion of #tlini#ist senti+ent and to ignoring the treas&res that lie b&ried in village life. . . . WESh#n the spirinial e<&ilibri&+ of intelle#t&als Bill be re% established, Bhen the state Bill #onsider it a #apital obligation to pro+ote eth% nographi# resear#h, then . . . ethnography Bill be able to stand Bith greater s&##ess in die servi#e of one of the lov#li#st +issions of all, knoBledge of the nation 0Paveles#& 1979, 9:62.9@ his #o+plaint indi#ates Bhat 3 se# as a +aNor #onse<&en#e of the debates on the national essen#e, their role in prod&#ing an instit&tional environ+ent, a +aterial infrastr&#t&re, that Bas sat&rated Bith ideas abo&t the *ation. BetBeen the late 1895s and Eorld Ear 33 b&t parti#&larly after 1918, !o+anian &niversities e4panded the n&+bers of depart+ents and #hairs 0se# Popes#&%1pin#ni 19762, #reated resear#h instit&tes, and established other vantage points for p&rs&ing intelle#t&al a#tivity. hese #hairs, depart+ents, and instit&tes Bere so+eti+es dis#i%plinarily defined by e4ternal #riteria 0Bhat spe#ialties Bere needed, Bhat E&ropean &niversities Bere doing, and so forth2, b&t so+eti+es they Bere defined by the spe#ialties of the person Bhose e+inen#e the neB depart+ent Bas reBarding. hat is, if a philosophy depart+ent split into tBo neB depart+ents, their profiles +ight depend on the spe#ialty of the in#&+bent professor or the one being bro&ght in. Conversely, at a professor-s depart&re, his #hair +ight be dissolved or r#d#fined. 9; 3n these #ir#&+stan#es, 3 s&b+it, given the national #on#erns of !o+ania-s neB politi#al b&rea&#ra#y, it +ade sense for s#holars to #o+pete for e+inen#e and for the instit&tionaliIation of their spe#ialties by #lai+ing to treat the *ation and represent its val&es better than any ;5 A* ECE'E* 1 other field or s#holar. !o+anian pra#titioners of Bhat be#a+e instit&tionaliIed dis#iplinary spe#ialties disting&ished the+selves +aterially by appropriating the *ation as their spe#ial obNe#t and #lai+ing instit&tional reso&r#es on gro&nds of their e4pertise in treating it. By these +eans, they se#&red a stable vantage

point in &niversity depart+ents and instit&tes. 98 3 do not Bish to s&ggest that these intelle#t&als Bere singl#%+indedly p&rs&ing and serving poBer by their a#tions/indeed, +any of the+ tho&ght they Bere doing N&st the opposite. Persons str&ggling over val&es believe in the+, N&st as do the Briter and readers ot these lines. B&t 3 do insist that val&es ar# not Bholly inno#ent of the positions fro+ Bhi#h they ar# arti#&lated, in this #ase positions of #&lt&ral prod&#tion in a reso&r#e%poor environ+ent better disposed to the s#ien#es that Bo&ld develop ind&stry than to h&+anists. he effe#t of all this #arving &p of dis#iplinary t&rf on the basis of the *ation Bas to e+bed the *ation per+anently in intelle#t&al life, Bhi#h #a+e to be shot thro&gh Bith it in every sphere of in<&iry and #reation, and to bring into e4isten#e a +ore s&bstantial +aterial gro&nding for the national for+ of dis#o&rse.99 @ he nation@ and @the people-@ had be#o+e the &n<&estioned basis for every state+ent +ade in the debate, noBhere Bas anyone asking the <&estion, @3s there s&#h a thing as -the !o+anian people-K@ 'espite so+eti+es%fier#e disagree+ent on the parti#&lars, these notions had be#o+e the basis for intera#tion a#ross the Bhole spe#tr&+ of politi#al and #&lt&ral life. 3n this sense, the national dis#o&rse #an be said to have be#o+e a basi# ideologi#al pre+ise of all arg&+entation in !o+ania, the ling&isti# #&rren#y both a+ong intelle#t&als and betBeen the+ and others a#tively engaged in politi#s. 3f, as "o&#a&lt says 019;6, 6692, dis#iplines #onstit&te a syste+ of #ontrol in the prod&#tion of dis#o&rse that #ontin&ally rea#tivates a &nifor+ set of r&les Bithin Bhi#h state+ents #an be +ade, then the interBar years #ontin&ed and #o+pleted a pro#ess of dis#iplinary definition that +ade a parti#&lar for+ of dis#o&rse/the national one/an ineradi#able f#at&re of !o+anian s#holarly life, governing the for+s of state+ents that +ight be prod&#ed. his #hapter has e4a+ined so+e debates abo&t !o+anian identity, ill&+inating +eans Bhereby a national ideology Bas #onstr&#ted that be#a+e hege+oni#. he ideologi#al pro#ess involved a #o+bination of dis#ord and har+ony a+ong those engaged in the+, Bhi#h obs#&red and therefore deepened f&nda+ental shared pre+ises by s&ppressing the+ in arg&+ent. he ter+s that Bere &sed had i+pli#ations for politi% A* ECEUE* 1 ;1 #al progra+s even Bhen these Bere not +ade e4pli#it, asserting a @Bestern@ or @eastern@ #hara#ter for !o+anians, for e4a+ple, invoked politi#al progra+s for or against #apitalist ind&strialiIation. he ideologi#al pro#ess also #onstr&#ted thro&gh dis#o&rse a relation to the loBer #lasses, espe#ially the peasants, that perpet&ated their s&bNe#tion, setting the +asses s<&arely in another #a+p fro+ those Bho spoke for the+ and pre#l&ding a neB politi#al relationship a+ong gro&ps. 3t #onstr&#ted a &nitary sy+boli# spa#e 0the *ation2 that denied diversity, even as the a#t&al spa#e Bas rent by diversity. "inally, it entren#hed #ertain val&es and pra#ti#es +ore fir+ly Bithin instit&tional str&#t&res. hese val&es and pra#ti#es #on#erning the *ation fortified it for the en#o&nter it Bas soon to have Bith the dis#o&rse of =ar4is+. 'espite +assive #hanges in the #lass and politi#al str&#t&re after 199$, these #onse<&en#es of the national dis#o&rse #ontin&ed to be felt even Bithin a !o+ania r&led by the Co++&nist party. 3ntelle#t&als #ontin&ed to arg&e a+ong the+selves and Bith the Party leadership abo&t the politi#al progra+s

that Bo&ld best serve the *ation-s interestsL the arg&+ents #ontin&ed to reinfor#e the ideologi#al pre+ises &nderlying the+L and the fate of @the +asses@ #ontin&ed to be ignored e4#ept rhetori#ally. Be#a&se the debates e+bedded the *ation deeply not N&st in intelle#t&al and politi#al dis#o&rse b&t also in instit&tions s&pporting intelle#t&al and politi#al life, #ontin&ed a#tion Bithin these ideologi#ally sat&rated instit&tions reprod&#ed !o+anian nationalis+ f&rther, #o+pli#ating the atte+pt of the =ar4ist alternative to se#&re an instit&tional foothold.

CHAP E! ED Modeling Socialism and Socialist Cultural Politics "ro+ ti+e to ti+e the state, e+barrassed by the in#reasing de+and for positions in its servi#e, is for#ed to open the sl&i#es of the b&rea&#rati# #anals in order to ad+it tho&sands of neB post&lants and th&s to transfor+ these fro+ dangero&s adversaries into Iealo&s defenders and partisans, -U-here are tBo #lasses of intelle#t&als, those Bho have s&##eeded in se#&ring a post at the +anger of the state, Bhilst the others #onsist of those Bho . . . have assa&lted the fortress Bitho&t being able to for#e their Bay in. /!obert =i#hels he #o++&nist revol&tion e4pli#itly pro#lai+ed and ostensibly pra#ti#ed the &nity of poBer and knoBledge, the inner+ost #ore of the intelle#t&al idio+. />yg+&nt Ba&+an ;6 3n the pre#eding #hapter, 3 shoBed hoB arg&+ents abo&t national identity entren#hed the *ation in the rhetori# and instit&tions of intelle#t&al life, parti#&larly in the years before Eorld Ear 33. Altho&gh 3 did not +ake an e4pli#it arg&+ent linking this national dis#o&rse to the spe#ifi#s of its so#ial environ+ent, +y dis#&ssion i+plied =D'EL3*F 1DC3AL31= A*' 1DC3AL31 CUL U!AL PDL3 3C1 ;7 that tBo ele+ents Bere for+ative. "irst, +any intelle#t&als +ade their living as state e+ployees and e4panded their dis#iplines at state e4pense. 1tate b&rea&#rats Bere the people thro&gh Bho+ one +ight gain gro&nd by shoBing that one-s i+age of !o+anian identity, val&es for it, and +anner of attending to it Bere better/+ore representative/than those of others. 1e#ond, intelle#t&als also sold their prod&#ts on a +arket. *ovelists, literary #riti#s Briting for a paying #lientele, Briters of history books, and so on, had every reason/even if they Bere also partly #overed by s&bventions and grants/to e4pand the national +arket for their Borks and to prote#t it fro+ too +&#h @foreign@ 0i.e., Bestern2 infl&en#e. heir environ+ent Bas defined, then, by a #o+bination of state hando&ts and Bhat Anderson 019872 #alls @print #apitalis+.@ !o+ania-s +eta+orphosis fro+ #apitalist #olony into so#ialist satellite altered the fra+eBork for intelle#t&al a#tivity. 3t greatly red&#ed the role of the +arket and #&rtailed Bestern infl&en#e, Bhile +aking the state b&rea&#ra#y virt&ally the sole e+ployer and s&stain#r of #&lt&re. he i+position of so#ialis+ did not +erely #hange the val&es of a feB e4isting variables, hoBever, it bro&ght into being a so#ial order driven by Bholly different prin#iples. o &nderstand the #&lt&ral str&ggles that took pla#e in so#ialist !o+ania and their relationship to national ideology re<&ires for+&lating these prin#iples e4pli#itly. his #hapter presents, therefore, a theoreti#al fra+eBork for analyIing @real so#ialis+@ as a so#ial order.` he fra+eBork 3 offer #eased to #hara#teriIe the East E&ropean so#ialist blo# d&ring the revol&tionary year 1989L indeed, its appli#ability to so+e of those #o&ntries and to the 1oviet Union Bas already di+inishing before that year. 03ts #ontin&ed relevan#e for &nderstanding the Asian so#ialist states or others that

+ay yet be for+ed is a <&estion beyond +y #o+peten#e.2 *evertheless, 3 believe the +odel 3 present is appropriate for analyIing East E&ropean so#ialist syste+s &p to that ti+e and +ay be profitably &sed by f&t&re st&dents of this period in East E&ropean history. 3t is e4#eptionally Bell s&ited for !o+ania, in parti#&lar, &p to the overthroB ofCea&aes#&. 3n Bhat folloBs 3 Bill des#ribe the +odel e+ployed in s&bse<&ent #hapters and dis#&ss its i+pli#ations for the prod&#tion of #&lt&re, for the interse#tion of #&lt&re Bith poBer, and for the link betBeen these and !o+anian national identity. As is &s&al in des#ribing abstra#t +odels of so#ial syste+s, 3 &se the present tense even tho&gh the reality is largely past. 3 offer this fra+eBork to fa#ilitate not N&st e4planation b&t also eval&ation. 3n +y introd&#tory #o++ents abo&t #&lt&ral politi#s &nder ;9 =D'EL3*F 1DC3AL31= A*' 1DC3AL31 CUL U!AL PDL3 3C1 so#ialis+, 3 #a&tioned against favoring #ertain intelle#t&als N&st be#a&se they &phold the val&es of o&r oBn s#holarly pra#ti#e, s&#h as the @sear#h for tr&th,@ standards of professional #o+peten#e, and so forth. Dn Bhat gro&nds, then, +ight one take a position on intelle#t&al.politi#al battles like those in this bookK 3 believe 3 +&st establish e4pli#it gro&nds, for the folloBing reason. Eestern leftists Bho have not tro&bled to live in so#ialist settings +ay find in so+e of the battles 3 des#ribe an anti%#olonial rhetori# they Bo&ld Bish to s&pport 0as, in other #ir#&+stan#es, +ight 3 +yself2. 3t is as i+portant for +e to e4plain to the+ Bhy this is the Brong politi#al #hoi#e as it is for +e to #hallenge Bestern liberals- a&to+ati# s&pport of @tr&th@ and @s#ien#e.@ !eaders Bho la#k the taste for #o+ple4 and obf&s#ating Nargon Bill be relieved to knoB that +ost of it is #on#entrated in the present #hapter. Altho&gh +y hope is that this theoreti#al interl&de Bill enri#h the s&bse<&ent dis#&ssion, so+e readers +ay prefer to skip this #hapter altogether and get on Bith the shoB.

The $&namics of '(ea" Socia"ism'2 MAXIMIZATION PRINCIPLES AND BUREAUCRATIC ALLOCATION

3 Bill dispense Bith a thoro&gh revieB of literat&re on the nat&re of so#ialis+ and Bill si+ply present an analysis distilled fro+ die Borks 3 find the +ost pers&asive.7 h&s, 3 es#heB <&estions abo&t Bhether or not so#ialis+ is a #lass so#iety, Bhat its #lass str&#t&re #onsists of, and so forth/<&estions Bith Bhi#h the analysis of so#ialis+ 0as a @neB #lass syste+@2 began/and +ove dire#tly to Borks analyIing the f&nda+ental +e#hanis+s of so#ialist syste+s. =y taste in theories of so#ialis+ is @indigenist@, 3 find the best theorists to be sophisti#ated @natives,@ Bho have better data than o&tsiders. he folloBing dis#&ssion draBs #hiefly &pon Britings of the !o+anian s#holar Ca+p#an& 019882 and the H&ngarians )ornai 019852, )onrad and 1Iel#nyi 019;92, and "eher, Heller, and =ark&s 0hen#eforth "H= 19872. Even tho&gh they Bere not N&st analysts b&t parti#ipated very dire#tly in the politi#s of East E&ropean intelle#t&al life and #ontrib&ted to the doBnfall of the syste+s they #riti#ally des#ribed,91 find their +odels far +ore infor+ative than anything generated in the Eest. =D'EL3*F 1DC3AL31= A*' 1DC3AL31 CUL U!AL PDL3 3C1 ;$

he +ost fr&itf&l beginning on the <&estion of so#ialis+-s @laBs of +otion@ #a+e, in +y opinion, fro+ )onrad and 1Iel#nyi 019;92. hey reNe#ted the <&estion of oBnership as a starting point for the analysis of so#ialis+ and asked instead hoB the so#ialist e#ono+y is integrated/ Bhat legiti+ates the appropriation of s&rpl&s 0)onrad and 1Iel#nyi 19;9, 98L 1Ielenyi 1986, 695 ff.2. 1o#ialis+-s #entral legiti+ating prin#iple, they ansBered, is @rational redistrib&tion,@ the ideology thro&gh Bhi#h the b&rea&#rati# apparat&s N&stifies appropriating the s&rpl&s prod&#t and allo#ating it by priorities the Party has set. "ro+ this they defined the @+otor@ of so#ialis+ as the drive to +a4i+iIe redistrib&tive poBer 0in #ontrast to that of #apitalis+, the drive to +a4i+iIe profit2 01Iel#nyi 1986, 7182. 3 rephrase this as @allo#ative poBer@ and speak of b&rea&#rati# allo#ation rather than redistrib&tion, so as to avoid #onf&sing so#ialist redistrib&tion Bith for+s +ore fa+iliar fro+ e#ono+i# anthropology. "eh#r, Heller, and =ark&s phrase the prin#iple so+eBhat +ore #&+%berso+#ly, @the +a4i+iIation of the vol&+e of the +aterial +eans 0as &se%val&es2 &nder the global disposition of the apparat&s of poBer as a Bhole #onstit&tes the goal%f&n#tion governing the e#ono+i# a#tivities of the state@ 01987, :$2. heir ai+ is to e+phasiIe that +a4i+iIing allo#ative poBer does not ne#essarily +ean +a4i+iIing the reso&r#es available for allo#ation, that is, the so#ial s&rpl&s. o the #ontrary, these s#holars arg&e that the @rationality@ spe#ifi# to so#ialist e#ono+ies in#l&des their often sa#rifi#ing an e4panded total o&tp&t, thereby di+inishing the potential pool of reso&r#es to allo#ate. Ehat is +ore i+portant, sys%t#+i#ally, than in#reasing the pool of reso&r#es is having the +ost i+portant ones/espe#ially the reso&r#es that generate +ore reso&r#es/ &nder the apparat&s-s #ontrol so that as +&#h as possible, reso&r#es generated Bithin the so#iety re+ain Bithin the b&rea&#rati# apparat&s rather than falling o&t of it into #ons&+ption 0"H= 1987, :;%:82. Ehen these syste+s appear to behave irrationally, they ar# in fa#t piling &p reso&r#es that enhan#e the #apa#ity of the apparat&s to allo#ate. he best e4a+ple is the @irrational@ e+phasis of so#ialist e#ono+i#s on developing heavy ind&stry 0Bhi#h prod&#es +ore reso&r#es and #an be #entrally #ontrolled2 at the e4pense of #ons&+er ind&stries, Bhose prod&#ts fall o&t of #entral #ontrol into the hands of #ons&+ers. his syste+ e+phasis is, of #o&rse, one #a&se of the long <&e&es for #ons&+er goods, so #hara#teristi# of &n refor+ed so#ialist so#ieties, and of the Bidespread @#orr&ption@ and #&ltivation of personal ti#s that help ;: =D'EL3*F 1DC3AL31= A*' 1DC3AL31 CUL U!AL PDL3 3C1 people to pro#&re things the b&rea&#ra#y-s love for heavy ind&stry Bo&ld otherBise deny the+. Ca+pean&-s phrasing of essentially the sa+e point is the leanest, so#ialis+-s f&nda+ental dyna+i# is to a##&+&late +eans of prod&#tion 01988, 11;/1182. "or this, #onsiderations of salability 0i.e., of #ons&+ption2 are tr&ly an obsta#le to a##&+&lation rather than, as in #apitalis+, a #ondition of it, Bhi#h helps to e4plain Bhy so#ialist e#ono+ies +ake goods of s&#h poor e<&ality, @1talinist +onopoly . . . prod&#es the +eans of prod&#tion pre#isely in order not to sell the+. rans+itting their non%val&e to all the salable obNe#ts they prod&#e, these &nsellable +eans of prod&#tion veritably #onstit&te the #4tra##ono+i# base of the 1talinist e#ono+y@ 0ibid., 1762. Be#a&se poBer is a f&n#tion of so#ial oBnership of the +eans of prod&#tion, that is, enhan#ing the +eans of prod&#tion so oBned enhan#es the do+inan#e of the politi#al apparat&s that

#ontrols the+. Altho&gh other theorists rationaliIe it so+eBhat differently, the #r&#ial e+phasis is the sa+e, so#ialis+-s #entral i+perative is to in#rease the b&rea&#ra#y-s #apa#ity to allo#ate, Bhi#h is not the sa+e as in#reasing the a+o&nts to be allo#ated.$ he obverse of this a##&+&lation of reso&r#es Bithin the apparat&s is the destr&#tion of reso&r#es o&tside it. Be#a&se the allo#ativ# #apa#ity of a so#ial a#tor is relative to that of other a#torsX poBer at the #enter Bill be enhan#ed to the e4tent that the reso&r#es of other a#tors #an be disabled.: Dther fo#i of prod&#tion +&st be prevented fro+ posing an alternative to the #entral +onopoly on goods. 3 draB this idea of disable+ent fro+ Fross-s analysis of hoB the 1oviet state in#orporated the Polish Ukraine in 1979 0Fross 19882. Calling this state a @spoiler state,@ Fross arg&es that its poBer #a+e fro+ in#apa#itating a#t&al or potential lo#i of organiIation, th&s ens&ring that no one else #o&ld get things done or asso#iate for p&rposes other than those of the #enter.; he ne#essity for these syste+s to disable all organiIations of reso&r#es o&tside the #enter is apparent fro+ the #atastrophi# effe#ts 0for syste+ +aintenan#e2 that res&lted Bhen alternative organiIations e+erged, as in Poland and H&ngary d&ring the late 1985s. his tenden#y of the #enter Borks in #ontradi#tory relation, hoBever, Bith one of the +ost pervasive feat&res of so#ialist syste+s, the for+ation of @se#ond e#ono+i#s,@ largely e4ternal to the for+al e#ono+i# b&rea&#ra#y tho&gh integrated Bith it. Be#a&se the #o++and syste+ serves #ons&+ers so poorly, infor+al provisioning of #ons&+er goods and servi#es springs &p everyBhere. 1o+eti+es, as Bith the @private plot@ of #olle#tive far+ +e+bers, s&#h a#tivity is even legal. A b&% =D'EL3*F 1DC3AL31= A*' 1DC3AL31 CUL U!AL PDL3 3C1 ;; rea&#ra#y that re#ogniIes its in#apa#ity to provide these goods and that fears the so#ial #onse<&en#es of their &navailability, s&#h as in H&ngary, Bill restrain its tenden#y to perse#&te these independent fo#i of organiIation a#tivity, and reso&r#es. A b&rea&#ra#y like that of C#a&s#s#&-s !o+ania, +ore #on#erned Bith threats to its +onopoly on allo#ation and prepared to &se for#e if ne#essary, Bill perse#&te/often to the hilt. 3n !o+ania, for e4a+ple, peasants #a&ght selling above the fi4ed pri#e or fo&nd Bith +ore than a +onth-s food s&pply on hand Bere liable for as +&#h as five years- i+prison+ent. 1everal observations sho&ld be +ade abo&t this analysis. "irst, it sho&ld not be seen as a version of earlier Bestern theories of btotalitarianis+@ or #onf&sed Bith s&#h theories. 3t addresses so#ialist syste+s fro+ a #o+pletely different theoreti#al angle, and its i+pli#ations for the analysis of #&lt&re are #o+pletely different as Bell. he se#ond observation #on#erns #ons#io&s intent. Altho&gh so+e Party leaders +ay indeed #ons#io&sly intend to in#rease #ontrol over +eans of prod&#tion/the e4press e+phasis on heavy ind&stry s&ggests this, for e4a+ple/the analysis #on#erns the #ons#io&s intention of so#ialist b&% rea&#rats less than the syste+i# effe#ts of their behavior. Dn the Bhole, b&rea&#rats ar# not #ons#io&sly striving to in#rease allo#ative poBer 0=ark&s 1981, 69:2L they ar# &s&ally preo##&pied Bith f&lfilling planned o&tp&t targets. 3t is the #&+&lative effe#ts of b&rea&#rats f&lfilling plans that generates the syste+-s #entral tenden#y/the a##&+&lation of allo#ative poBer/not #ons#io&sly strat#giIed as s&#h by any a#tor. o see Bhy this is so re<&ires &nderstanding tBo basi# ele+ents of behavior

Bithin these syste+s, bargaining and shortage, on the one hand, and the logi# of allo#ative b&rea&#ra#ies, on the other. he +e#hanis+s of bargaining and shortage Bithin #entrally planned e#ono+ies have been ill&+inated by the H&ngarian e#ono+ists Ba&er 019;82 and )ornai 019852. "&nda+ental to their arg&+ents is that so#ialis+-s prod&#ing &nits operate Bithin soft b&dget #onstraints/that is, fir+s that do poorly Bill be bailed o&t, and finan#ial penalties for Bhat #apitalists Bo&ld se# as @irrational@ and @ineffi#ient@ behavior 0e4#ess inventory, overe+ploy+ent, overinvest+ent2 ar# +ini+al. 3n #onse% <&en#e, so#ialist fir+s do not develop the internal dis#iplinary +e#hanis+s +ore often #hara#teristi# of fir+s &nder #apitalis+. 8 Be#a&se of this, and be#a&se #entral plans &s&ally overstate prod&#tive #apa#ities and rat#het o&tp&t targets higher ea#h year, fir+s learn to hoard +aterials and labor. hey overstate their +aterial re<&ire+ents for prod&#% ;8 =D'EL3*F 1DC3AL31= A*' 1DC3AL31 CUL U!AL PDL3 3C1 tion, and they overstate their invest+ent needs, in hopes of having eno&gh to +eet or even s&rpass targets, th&s in#reasing their in#o+es. Ehenever a +anager en#o&nters bottlene#ks in prod&#tion or fails to +eet targets, he #an alBays #lai+ that he Bill be s&##essf&l if he re#eives +ore invest+ent. Pro#esses of this sort go on at every level of the syste+, fro+ s+all fir+s &p to the largest steel #o+bines and on thro&gh progressively +ore in#l&sive seg+ents of the e#ono+i# b&rea&#ra#y. At ea#h level, +anager%b&rea&#rats are padding their b&dgets. h&s, these syste+s have e4pansionist tenden#ies that are not N&st inherent in groBth%oriented #entral plans b&t are also generated fro+ beloB. 1oft b&dget #onstraints and a##ess to b&rea&#rati# favor ar# not distrib&ted &nifor+ly thro&gho&t the e#ono+y. Planners vieB so+e se#tors 0heavy ind&stry, ar+a+ents2 as +ore strategi# and Bill therefore prote#t the+ +ore e4tensively. )noBing this, +anagers of strategi# enterprises often arg&e for and obtain higher invest+ent so as to pree+pt bottlene#ks. Clai+s like theirs set &p a gradient, Bith s+aller, less #entral fir+s or b&rea&#rati# seg+ents striving to in#rease their b&dgets so as to be#o+e +ore strategi# and +ore likely to re#eive f&t&re invest+ents. =oreover, in ti+es of #risis or in the early phases of #ertain refor+s, less strategi# se#tors +ay be released fro+ #entral s&bsidy into <&asi%+ark#t #onditions, Bhere they have to fend for the+selves &nder harder b&dgetary #onditions. (ariability in the hardness of b&dget #on% straints #an be felt even Bithin a sphere s&#h as #&lt&ral prod&#tion, as #hapters $ and : Bill shoB. he res&lt of bargaining and hoarding by enterprises in relation to the #enter is an @e#ono+y of shortage@ 0)ornai 19852. Hoarding at all levels freeIes in pla#e reso&r#es that ar# needed for prod&#tion so+eBhere elseL all prod&#ing &nits Bant +ore inp&ts than they #an get. 1hortages ar# so+eti+es relative, as Bhen s&ffi#ient <&antities of +aterials and labor for a given level of o&tp&t a#t&ally e4ist, b&t not Bhen and Bhere they ar# needed. 1o+eti+es shortages are absol&te, oBing to the nonprod&#tion that res&lts fro+ relative shortage 0or the e4port of ite+s needed lo#ally, as in 1985s !o+ania2. Be#a&se Bhat is s#ar#e and proble+ati# in so#ialist syste+s is s&pplies, rather than de+and, as in #apitalist ones, )ornai #alls so#ialist syste+s s&pply% or reso&r#e%#onstrained 0as opposed to de+and%#onstrained #apitalis+2. he #a&se ot s&pply #onstraints is not so+e planning error b&t the invest+ent h&nger inherent in

so#ialist planning. he #o+bination of e4pansionist tenden#ies and insatiable invest+ent de+and is the +ain reason Bhy the prod&#tive for#es greB so in#essantly d&ring so#ialis+-s early phases =D'EL3*F 1DC3AL31= A*' 1DC3AL31 CUL U!AL PDL3 3C1 ;9 01985, 651%6562/feeding, in this Bay, the #entral drive of the syste+ as des#ribed above, Bhi#h is to a##&+&late +eans of prod&#tion and allo#ative #apa#ity. Allo#ation is the b&siness of Bhat nearly all theorists of so#ialis+ #all the @apparat&s@ and.or the @b&rea&#ra#y@ 0Bitho&t alBays being very e4pli#it abo&t Bhat they +ean by this2.9 he apparat&s is not, hoBever, a &nitary organis+. =ost theorists of it +ake a distin#tion 3 think is #r&#ial for &nderstanding so+e of the #ontradi#tory tenden#ies in these syste+s. "#h#r #t al. speak of the b&rea&#rati# apparat&s/an all%e+bra#ing +ono%organiIational entity/on the one hand, and, on the other, of its @pinna#le,@ @a s+all #ir#le of the politi#al elite, the Party leadership, Bhere all the basi#%orientativ# de#isions #on#erning the overall distrib&tion of so#ial s&rpl&s are +ade@ 0"H= 1987, $1, ;52. )agarlitsky speaks of the @b&rea&#ra#y@ vers&s the @stato#ra#y@ 01988, 167%169, n. 652, )onrad and 1Ielenyi of the b&rea&#ra#y vers&s the Party elite 019;9, 1$72, and Ca+pean& 01988, 197%1$;2 of the state b&rea&#ra#y vers&s the @global +onopoly@ or @s&pre+e entity,@ Bhose +eaning is so+eBhat obs#&re in his analysis b&t see+s to red&#e to the top+ost handf&l of the Politb&ro and the Leader.15 Ca+pean& theoriIes this distin#tion betBeen Bhat 3 Bill #all b&rea&#ra#y and #enter +ore e4pli#itly than others, he attrib&tes it to the division #hara#teristi# of +onopolies of all kinds, in#l&ding #apitalist ones/betBeen oBnership and +anage+ent. =ost oBnership f&n#tions, he arg&es, are +onopoliIed by the #enterL the role of the b&rea&#ra#y is to +anage. his division s&ggests Bays of dis#&ssing one so&r#e of #onfli#ting tenden#ies Bithin so#ialis+, based in the different interests of the body that oBns.#ontrols and the body that +anages. he #ontradi#tory tenden#ies have so+ething to do, 3 think, Bith @refor+@/ ideas abo&t de#entraliIation, +arket so#ialis+, and so forth, Bhi#h, before they #hanged the syste+ definitively 0and &ne4pe#tedly2 in the 1985s, had appeared a n&+ber of ti+es before.@ Ehereas the #entral @oBners@ of so#ialiIed +eans of prod&#tion #an persist in poli#ies Bhose effe#t is to a##&+&late +eans of prod&#tion Bitho&t #on#ern for things like prod&#tivity and o&tp&t, the b&rea&#rati# +anagers of the allo#ative pro#ess +&st be #on#erned Bith s&#h things. here are tBo sets of reasons for this, pro#esses involving b&rea&#rats- prestige, and the realities of their role as @allo#ators.@ Behind the b&rea&#rati# e4pansionis+%Bithin%shortage des#ribed above are #o+petitive pro#esses perhaps analogo&s to the dile++as fa#ed by entreprene&rs in #apitalis+.16 Constrained by de+and, #api% 85 =D'EL3*F 1DC3AL31= A*' 1DC3AL31 CUL U!AL PDL3 3C1 talists strive for ever%greater do+esti#ation 0predi#tability2 of the de+and str&#t&re, thro&gh s&#h devi#es as advertising and thro&gh softening the b&dget #onstraints of #ons&+ers via #redit and #ons&+er debt. 17 3n a s&pply% #onstrained syste+, by #ontrast, Bhat +&st be do+esti#ated is s&pplies, everyone s#ra+bles for a##ess to the pot. 19 At all points in the syste+, b&rea&#rati# positions or Nobs ar# &sed as a platfor+ for a+assing reso&r#es.

Personal infl&en#e, @#orr&ption,@ and re#ipro#al e4#hanges ar# so+e of the +aNor +e#hanis+s. his sort of behavior goes on thro&gho&t the so#iety b&t is espe#ially i+portant for b&rea&#rats, Bhose entire rep&tation and prestige rest &pon their #apa#ity to a+ass reso&r#es. Any b&rea&#rat, any b&rea&#rati# seg+ent, tends to feed the e4pansion of its oBn do+ain, in#reasing its #apa#ity to give o&t/Bhether the @gift@ be ed&#ation, apart+ents, per+ission to p&blish, +edi#al #are, so#ial Belfare, Bages, f&nds for invest+ents in fa#tory infrastr&#t&re, or so+ething else. hro&gho&t the b&rea&#ra#y, then, there is ra+pant #o+petition to in#rease one-s b&dget at the e4pense of those ro&ghly e<&ivalent to one on a horiIontal s#ale, so as to have potentially +ore to disb&rse to #lai+ants beloB. hat is, Bhat #o&nts +ost in the #o+petition a+ong so#ial a#tors Bithin allo#ative b&rea&#ra#ies is inp&ts to one-s seg+ent, rather than o&tp&ts of prod&#tion 01tark 1988, 982.1$ 3n the redistrib&tiv# syste+s #o++on to literat&re in anthropology, #hiefs redistrib&te goods to their folloBers, N&st as so#ialist b&rea&#rats allo#ate so#ial reBards. he li+its on a #hiefs poBer, as on a so#ialist b&rea&#rat-s, #o+e fro+ the poBer of other #hiefs to siphon folloBers aBay by giving/or #reating the i+pression that they #an give/bigger and better feasts or +ore genero&s loans. Like #hiefs in s&#h r#%distrib&tive syste+s, b&rea&#rats ar# #onstantly &nder press&re not to be o&tdone by other b&rea&#rats, they +&st #ontin&e to strive for infl&en#e, a+ass +ore reso&r#es, and raise the standing of their seg+ent of the b&rea&#ra#y. he #o+petition #hara#teristi# of so#ialis+ #onsists of alBays trying to get +ore allo#able inp&ts than others at one-s level, so one #an +ove &p #loser to the privileged #ir#le that alBays gets Bhat% ever it asks for 0the 1oviet +ilitary, for e4a+ple, &ntil the +id%1985s2. Eithin this #onte4t, so#ial a#tors at all levels +&st N&stify Bhy they, rather than so+e other a#tor or &nit, sho&ld re#eive allo#ations. his is tr&e of enterprise +anagers, lo#al ad+inistrative offi#ials, govern+ent +inisters, editors of p&blishing ho&ses, individ&al a&thors or s#holars/that is, the prin#iple is pervasive. Understanding it is f&nda+ental, for only if the basi# for+ of #o+petition is seen in these ter+s rather =D'EL3*F 1DC3AL31= A*' 1DC3AL31 CUL U!AL PDL3 3C1 81 than in ter+s of #o+peting #apitals Bill the vario&s #lai+s &pon reso&r#es for #&lt&ral prod&#tion, to be dis#&ssed later in this book, +ake any sense. his dis#&ssion of inp&ts s&ggests a proble+. As 3 arg&ed earlier, +a4i+iIing allo#ative #apa#ity is not the sa+e as +a4i+iIing the a#t&al s&rpl&s/the #on#rete disposable reso&r#es over Bhi#h a b&rea&#rat +akes allo#ative de#isions. B&t at so+e point, real reso&r#es do have to be delivered, and for this a b&rea&#rat-s allo#ative rep&tation is not alBays eno&gh. his is espe#ially tr&e in the do+ain of e#ono+i# prod&#tion, heavy ind&stry above all. Eitho&t a#t&al invest+ents and hard +aterial reso&r#es, loBer%level &nits #annot prod&#e the +eans of prod&#tion &pon Bhi#h both b&rea&#ra#y and #enter rely. Prod&#tive a#tivity #annot be so stifled that nothing gets prod&#ed, or the prestige of those Bho s&pposedly allo#ate Bo&ld enter a #risis. h&s, 3 s&ggest that Bhen #entral a##&+&lation of +eans of prod&#tion begins to threaten the #apa#ity of loBer%level &nits to prod&#eL Bhen persistent i+balan#es betBeen invest+ent in heavy ind&stry and in light ind&stry, betBeen allo#ations for invest+ent and for #ons&+ption, and so forth, #a&se a de#line in the a##&+&lation of a#t&al allo#able goodsL and Bhen the #enter-s atte+pts to

keep enterprises fro+ interfering in the pro#ess of appropriation a#t&ally obstr&#t the pro#ess of prod&#tion itself, then press&re arises for a shift of e+phasis. he press&re is partly fro+ those in the Bider so#iety to Bho+ not eno&gh is being allo#ated and partly fro+ b&rea&#rats the+selves Bhose prestige and, in#reasingly, prospe#ts of retaining poBer depend on having +ore goods. Dne then hears of de#entraliIation, of the rate of groBth, of prod&#tivity/in a Bord, of +atters of o&tp&t, rather than the inp&ts that ar# the heart of b&rea&#rati# perfor+an#e. he intr&sion of #on#ern Bith o&tp&t +eans, of #o&rse, the intr&sion of +e#hanis+s ini+i#al to e4panding allo#ative #apa#ity. he +ost obvio&s of these is the introd&#tion of freer +arkets, Bhi#h so#ialis+ as a r&le s&ppresses pre#isely be#a&se they +ove goods laterally rather than/as all r#distrib&tive syste+s re<&ire/verti#ally toBards the #enter.1: 3nherent in the different de+ands that +anage+ent/as opposed to oBnership@/of so#ial reso&r#es pla#es on an allo#ative b&rea&#ra#y, then, is the ne#essity to see to it that reso&r#es ar# a#t&ally generated 0and not +erely by +ore #oer#ive e4tra#tion, as in 1985s !o+ania2, that the #entraliIation of +eans of prod&#tion do#s not stifle prod&#tion altogether. h&s, <&ite aside fro+ the so%#alled @se#ond@ or infor+al e#ono+ies that flo&rish at the edges of the #o++and e#ono+y, one 86 =D'EL3*F 1DC3AL31= A*' 1DC3AL31 CUL U!AL PDL3 3C1 finds Bithin the apparat&s of +anage+ent itself an interest in +e#hanis+s that s&bvert the syste+-s #entral logi#. 1i+ilarly to #apitalis+, Bhere, in =ar4-s vieB, the goal%f&n#tion of the e#ono+y is to +a4i+iIe s&rpl&s val&e b&t the s&bNe#tive ai+ of #apitalists is to +a4i+iIe profit 0not the sa+e thing2/that is, s&bNe#tive intention feeds so+ething different fro+ Bhat a##&+&lation obNe#tively re<&ires/so in so#ialist syste+s the goal%f&n#tion of the e#ono+y is to +a4i+iIe allo#ativ# #apa#ity and #ontrol over +eans of prod&#tion, b&t the s&bNe#tive ai+ of at least so+e b&rea&#rats and enterprise +anagers so+e of the ti+e is to +a4i+iIe prod&#tion of a disposable s&rpl&s. his introd&#es into the syste+ a s&bordinate rationality not Bholly #onsonant Bith the overriding logi#, a rationality hinting that the #enter #annot set val&es Bith i+p&nity as if there Bere no s&#h thing as a#t&al prod&#tion #osts. Ehen this s&bordinate rationality is a+plified by events that bind so#ialis+-s dyna+i# Bith that of #apitalis+/ thro&gh international #redits and indebtedness to Bestern banks, for e4a+ple, Bith the ens&ing ne#essity of hard%#&rren#y e4ports that re<&ire a #on#ern Bith salability/then the tension betBeen the #entral logi# of #o++and and the s&bordinate @#o&nterrationaliti#s@ Bill inten% sify. his sharpens the #onfli#t betBeen #o++and and +arket, #entraliIation and de#entraliIation, invest+ent and #ons&+ption 0"H= 1987, 6;5/6;12.1; Ca+pean& s&++ariIes the res&lting tensions betBeen #enter 0@s&pre+e entity@2 and b&rea&#ra#y, h&s a potential for revolt against the s&pre+e entity is ins#ribed in the geneti# #ode of 1talinist b&rea&#ra#y. A#t&aliIed in die hidden for+ of i+per#eptible b&t for+idable daily press&res, this potential has draBn the b&rea&#ra#y into all die +aNor #onfli#ts Bhi#h, fro+ 19$: to die present, have shaken 1talinist so#ieties. Dn ea#h of these o##asions, its inherent a+big&ity has reg&larly divided its ranks into one seg+ent Bhi#h defended die s&pre+e entity and anodier Bhi#h #ontested it. ... his potential for revolt no&rishes the

organi# +istr&st die s&pre+e entity has of its b&rea&#ra#y, Bhi#h in t&rn no&rishes their histori#al tenden#y to transfor+ their separation into #onfli#t 01988, 1982. "ro+ these tensions, 3 believe, e+erged =ikhail Forba#hev-s atte+pt to refor+ the 1oviet syste+ and the East E&ropean so#ialis+s along Bith it. His throBing the Beight of his oBn refor+is+ behind potentially refor+ist b&rea&#rati# seg+ents in the other so#ialist states &lti+ately had the effe#t of fra#t&ring +onolithi# Parties, e4posing their a#t&al or potential fragility to restive p&bli#s, and destroying Co++&nist party r&le. he series of progressively +ore dra+ati# #onfrontations thro&gh Bhi#h this #a+e abo&t #&l+inated in the violent ov#r% =D'EL3*F 1DC3AL31= A*' 1DC3AL31 CUL U!AL PDL3 3C1 87 throB of *i#ola# C#a&s#s#&-s #o++&nist di#tatorship in !o+ania, its violen#e fed pre#isely by the r#l#ntlessn#ss Bith Bhi#h this Party apparat&s above all others in the blo#, had a##&+&lated so#ial reso&r#es in its oBn hands, devastated prod&#tive #apa#ity, and left the p&bli# destit&te.-@

WEAK STATES AND THE MODE OF CONTROL

he pre#eding se#tion has treated so#ialis+-s @laBs of +otion@ and so+e of its b&rea&#rati# politi#s. 3n this se#tion 3 dis#&ss so+e feat&res of so#ialist states, parti#&larly their inherent Beakness and their prin#ipal +odes of #ontrolling their pop&lations. he breathtaking speed Bith Bhi#h Co++&nist party leadership in Eastern E&rope #ollapsed in the fa#e of p&bli# opposition d&ring 1989 +akes it grat&ito&s to arg&e Bhat Bo&ld have been regarded, even in 1epte+ber or D#tober of that year, as a rather #ontentio&s vieB, that #ontrary to their original @totalitarian@ i+age, so#ialist states Bere Beak. Arg&+ents to this effe#t had been e+erging not only for Eastern E&ropean polities b&t for China as Bell.19 Altho&gh it is noB less ne#essary to N&stify this vieB, 3 o&ght nonetheless to s&ggest Bhy these states proved as Beak as they did. Ee #an #on#ept&aliIe so#ialis+-s Beak states fro+ three different angles, ea#h e+ploying a so+eBhat different definition of poBer. San Fross +akes one kind of arg&+ent. 3+pli#itly defining poBer as the #apa#ity to get things done, he #ontends that @to gain a fresh insight into the essen#e of the politi#al pro#ess &nder #o++&nis+ Be +&st revise o&r notions abo&t the +onopoliIation of poBer by #o++&nist parties@ 01989, 6582. He arg&es that the poBer +onopoly of so#ialis+-s @spoiler@ states destroys the state-s #apa#ity to get things done and thereby Beakens it. @ he i+age of 1talin-s !&ssia as a giganti#, all% poBerf&l, #entraliIed terror +a#hine is Brong@, a state that attains its @poBer@ by denying poBer to any other so#ial a#tor is not a poBerf&l state, and it #r&+bles the instant an effe#tive so#ial #hallenge arises 01988, 676%6772. o the e4tent that 1talin-s state appeared all%poBerf&l, the reason Bas a pervasive @privatiIation@ of the instr&+ents of #oer#ion, Bhi#h/far fro+ being #on#entrated so+eBhere at the XXP/Bere +ade available to everyone, thro&gh the +e#hanis+ of the den&n#iation, @ he real poBer of a totalitarian state res&lts fro+ its being at the disposal of every inhabitant, available for hire at a +o+ent-s noti#e@ 01988, 1652.6@ his is a dispersed kind of poBer, and the 89 =D'EL3*F 1DC3AL31= A*' 1DC3AL31 CUL U!AL PDL3 3C1

kind that re+ains at the #enter is p&rely the va#&&+ left after all fo#i of organiIation aro&nd the #enter have been destroyed, @Hen#e the perple4ing -Beakness- of these all%poBerf&l regi+es@ 0Fross 1989, 6592. A se#ond arg&+ent for the Beakness of so#ialist states defines poBer as a relationship of dependen#y, any so#ial a#tor that depends heavily &pon another for a #r&#ial reso&r#e or perfor+an#e that #annot be gotten elseBhere is not poBerf&l, no +atter hoB +any +eans of #oer#ion lie at its disposal 0E+erson 19:62. Ba&er 019;82 and !ev 0198;2 arg&e, for e4a+ple, that the politi#al #enter in so#ialist syste+s is &tterly dependent &pon loBer%level &nits for a##&rate prod&#tion fig&res, Bhi#h e4ist only at the point of prod&#tion Bhere the #enter e4er#ises +ini+al #ontrol. his la#k of #ontrol debilitates, be#a&se Bitho&t s&#h fig&res the #enter #annot plan. !&t loBer%level &nits never deliver reliable fig&res, #ither be#a&se they fear the #onse<&en#es of failed targets or be#a&se they Bish to #ontin&e inflating their invest+ent re<&ests 0see also )agarlitsky 1988, 852. Be#a&se #entral agen#ies have inade<&ate infor+ation, they #annot easily dete#t e4#essive invest+ent #lai+s, Bhi#h +akes it i+possible for the+ to resist the e4pansionist drive fro+ beloB. A related arg&+ent e+erges fro+ the i+pli#ations of the shortage e#ono+y for the strength of the politi#al #enter. Bargaining and hoarding by fir+s +ake labor a s#ar#e ite+ Bithin so#ialist e#ono+iesL str&#t&rally speaking, that is, labor has #onsiderable i+pli#it leverage, as 1olidarity and the 1oviet +iners- strikes +ade very #lear. 0 h&s, a +aNor analyti# proble+ has been to &nderstand hoB this i+pli#it leverage has been &nder#&tL se#, e.g., B&raBoy 198$, #h. 92. 1in#e b&rea&#rati# +onopoly over prod&#tive reso&r#es relies, &lti+ately, on Borkers- labor, this so&r#e of leverage/even Bhen it is not overtly +anifest/is str&#t&rally debilitating to the state. A third kind of arg&+ent +i4es the tBo above definitions, seeing poBer as a #apa#ity 0to ena#t poli#ies2 +itigated by the #enter-s dependen#y 0on inter+ediate and loBer%level #adres2. Poli#ies +ay be +ade at the #enter, b&t they are i+ple+ented in lo#al settings, Bhere those entr&sted Bith the+ +ay ignore, #orr&pt, overe4e#&te, or otherBise ad&lterate the+. his sort of arg&+ent is espe#ially #o++on in the Bork of anthropologists, Bho have observed at #lose range so+e of the +any Bays in Bhi#h lo#al e4e#&tors of #entral poli#y bend and redefine it in a##ord Bith their oBn styles of leadership, their #apabilities for enfor#e+ent, and so on 0se#, e.g., Hann and 1a+pson =1L )id##kel 1986L also Bialer 1988, ;92. Ehatever arg&+ent one prefers, ea#h brings to the fore a basi# <&#s% =D'EL3*F 1DC3AL31= A*' 1DC3AL31 CUL U!AL PDL3 3C1 8$ tion abo&t so#ialis+-s +ode of do+ination, hoB #an s&#h a relatively Beak state #ontrol its s&bordinates, parti#&larly the +asses 0as opposed to the b&rea&#rats, Bho, being advantaged by the syste+, pose less ot a threat to its #ontin&ity2 K Control over the +eans of prod&#tion, and poBer to li+it #ons&+ption, give so#ialist leaderships e4tensive #o++and over labor in the aggregate and do +&#h to keep s&bordinates passive b&t these ar# not s&ffi#ient. Be#a&se leaders #annot &se labor +arkets, firings, lo#ko&ts, &ne+ploy+ent, bankr&pt#ies, and so forth, the +eans for dis#iplining labor &nder so#ialis+ are +&#h less s&btle and varied than those available to #apitalists. Even in regi+es of +a4i+&+ #oer#ion, s&#h as !o+ania in the late

1985s, Borkers do not ne#essarily perfor+ as the #enter +ight Bish. Altho&gh in so+e respe#ts the #entral apparat&s is +ore interested in aro&sing p&bli# aBe than in b&ilding p&bli# legiti+a#y 0SoBitt 1987, 6862, the b&rea&#ra#y responsible for +anaging so#iety Bants not s&bNe#ts Bho are aBe%str&#k b&t s&bNe#ts Bho ar# #o+pliant. his invites &s, then, to proble+ atiIe the notion of @#ontrol@ and to in<&ire into the vario&s for+s thro&gh Bhi#h so#ialist regi+es have so&ght to a#hieve it. 1everal s#holars have approa#hed this proble+ by looking spe#ifi#ally at the +e#hanis+s for #ontrolling labor poBer and the labor pro#ess. o the e4tent that the labor poBer of Borking people is Bhat generates the Bealth Bith Bhi#h these syste+s operate, #ontrol over the labor of others is a #r&#ial #o+ponent of so#ial poBer 0se#, e.g., Boro#I 1989L H&+phrey 1987, 169, 755%71:, 7;52. Ehat +odes of #ontrol #an Be identify, and hoB do they relate both to the #entral dyna+i# of so#ialist syste+s and to the +atter of nationalis+K 3n his #onsideration of the first of these <&estions, Boro#I s&ggests that there ar# tBo +ain +odes of e4er#ising so#ial #ontrol, the +arket, and @politi#al +eans@ 0Boro#I 1989, 6892. An alternative possibility #o+es fro+ B&raBoy-s dis#&ssion of @prod&#tion regi+es,@ -in Bhi#h he too refers to +arket for#es b&t also brings in varying politi#al +eans that in#l&de degrees of #onsent or #oer#ion 0B&raBoy 198$, 162. His dis#&ssion brings to +ind 1kinner and Ein#kl#r-s 019:92 treat+ent of @#o+plian#e s&##ession@ in China, Bhi#h, altho&gh it la#ks a +odel of so#ialist syste+s, #ontains a helpf&lly differentiated vieB of so#ial #ontrol. 1kinner and Ein#kler s&ggest that at any given ti+e, a #o+ple4 organiIation 0in#l&ding so#ialist b&rea&#ra#ies2 +ay be p&rs&ing one or +ore of three kinds of strategi#s to se#&re the #o+plian#e of its s&bordinates. he a&thors de%nne these strategi#s, Bhi#h 3 Bill #all +odes of #ontrol, as re+&nerative 0relying on +aterial in#entives2, #oer#ive 0relying on for#e2, and nor% 8: =D'EL3*F 1DC3AL31= A*' 1DC3AL31 CUL U!AL PDL3 3C1 +ativ# 0relying on +oral i+peratives, so#ietal nor+s, or other ideologi#al appeals2. he nor+ative instability of so#ialist so#ieties leads +e to #all this third #ontrol strategy @sy+boli#%ideologi#al@ rather than nor+ative. Eithin so#ialis+-s b&rea&#rati# +ode of do+ination, then, 3 speak of these three +odes of #ontrol. !e+&nerative strategi#s entail giving +arkets a role in allo#ating goods and laborL these have for+ed the heart of +ost efforts by #o++&nist leaderships to refor+ the syste+. Coer#ive strategies entail not N&st syste+ati# &se of poli#e and se#&rity for#es b&t an atte+pt to +ini+iIe nonoffi#ial or +arket%derived so&r#es of in#o+e, for these red&#e people-s v&lnerability to #oer#ion. 1y+boli#%ideologi#al strategies entail o&tright e4hortations and also atte+pts to sat&rate #ons#io&sness Bith #ertain sy+bols and ideologi#al pre+ises to Bhi#h s&bse<&ent e4hortations +ay be addressed. Ee +ight f&rther s&bdivide sy+boli#%ideologi#al strategi#s a##ording to their potential bases of appeal, to nor+s of kinship and friendship, i+portant in organiIing infor+al netBorks and lo#al solidaritiesL to the e+an#ipation of the proletariat and other tenets of =ar4is+. Leninis+L to standards of living and +aterial #o+fort. he third of these, so+eti+es referred to as @the neB so#ial #ontra#t,@ Bas an i+portant a&4iliary to the re+&nerative #ontrol strategy &sed in H&ngary d&ring +&#h of the 19;5s and early 1985s, as Bell as at vario&s ti+es in East Fer+any, CIe#hoslovakia, and Poland &nder Fi#r#k. A final for+

of appeal that sy+boli#%ideologi#al #ontrol strategi#s #an e+phasiIe is to patriotis+ and sa#rifi#e for the *ation. Here, at last, Be se# a role for national ideology, as part of a +ode of #ontrol that is pri+arily sy+boli#%ideologi#al and that es#heBs appeal to standards of living or lo#al solidarities. his Bas the sit&ation in !o+ania of the 19;5s and 1985s, Bhere leaders +ade heavy &se of sy+boli#%ideologi#al appeals to the *ation, alongside ineffe#tive appeals to =ar4ist%Leninist nor+s. 3n 1kinner and Ein#kler-s for+&lation, the three +odes are not p&re types b&t #onstit&te a +i4, Bith one or another #le+ent predo+inating at one or another ti+e and refle#ting the balan#e of so#ial for#es Bithin the apparat&s of leadership. his #r&#ial point +&st be kept in +ind, for in +y fre<&ent referen#es to @sy+boli#%ideologi#al #ontrol,@ in the rest of this book, it Bo&ld be easy to read a denial of the +aNor role of #oer#ion, in all East E&ropean so#ialist syste+s b&t espe#ially in the !o+anian one. he +anner in Bhi#h the CIe#h, East Fer+an, and !o+anian regi+es fell +ade it obvio&s that #oer#ion had been their first pillar, as soon as it be#a+e #lear that those Parties did not f&lly #ontrol =D'EL3*F 1DC3AL31= A*' 1DC3AL31 CUL U!AL PDL3 3C1 8; the +eans of destr&#tion/that the CIe#h and East Fer+an leaders #o&ld not rely on lo#ally based 1oviet troops in order to retain poBer, and that the !o+anian ar+y had sided Bith the rebels/their r&le Bas over. Perhaps +ore than any other, the Cea&Mes#& regi+e rested on #oer#ion, to Bhi#h sy+boli# strategies Bere at best an i+portant s&pple+ent. Freater or lesser relian#e on #oer#ion Bas part of the +i4 of #ontrol strategies in all these regi+es, then, hoBever +&#h +ore visible re+&neration or sy+boli# appeals +ay have been.

Socia"ism and Cu"tura" )roduction

he above dis#&ssion of the nat&re of so#ialist syste+s had as its p&rpose to #larify the environ+ent in Bhi#h so#ialis+-s #&lt&ral prod&#ers Bork. Dn this the+e, theories of so#ialist syste+s 0)onrad and 1I#lenyi e4#epted2 tend toBard the inarti#&late. hey rarely p&rs&e the f&ll i+pli#ations of their neB% #lass theory or oBnership theory or goal%f&n#tion theory for hoB +eaning is prod&#ed and #ontrolled in so#ialist syste+s. Literat&re on #&lt&ral prod&#tion in other so#ial orders is not +&#h help, for s&#h thinkers as Bo&rdi#& 01989, 19882 and Eillia+s 019862 fra+e their analyses e4pli#itly in ter+s of #apitalist +arketsL yet the s&ppression of the +arket in so#ialist syste+s +eans that e4#ept Bhen refor+s reintrod&## +arket +e#hanis+s into its sphere, #&lt&re #eases to be a #o++odity. he folloBing arg&+ents +&st be seen as e4ploratory, ai+ing to s&ggest Bhat the properties of so#ialist syste+s +ight i+ply for the relation of intelle#t&als to poBer and for their behavior Bithin so#ialist so#iety.61 his does not +ean that in other kinds of so#iety, poBer has no interest in intelle#t&als or in knoBledge prod&#tion, +erely that in so#ialis+ the reasons for its interest ar# parti#&lar. Ee +ight begin Bith a 1988 observation fro+ a !o+anian e+igre, @Df all the so#ial strata of today-s !o+ania, the only one Bhose aspirations bring it into to&#h Bith that do+ain Bhi#h poBer #onsiders inalienable is the intelle#t&als@ 01ola#ol& 1988, 682. HoB is this soK Dne ansBer #o+es fro+ )onrad and 1I#lenyi, the legiti+ating +yth of the syste+, @rational redistrib&tion,@ gives the Party a +onopoly on @teleo%logi#al knoBledge,@ the

knoBledge ne#essary to setting and i+ple+enting goals for so#iety, knoBledge of the laBs of so#ial develop+ent and of the path to realiIing progress 0#f. 1I#lenyi 1986, 75:2. Cet at the 88 =D'EL3*F 1DC3AL31= A*' 1DC3AL31 CUL U!AL PDL3 3C1 sa+e ti+e, the Party #reates ed&#ated persons/a larger pool than it re<&ires, so as to per+it sele#tion. 1o+e of the+ spe#ialiIe pre#isely in knoBledge of so#iety and so#ial val&es, and not all of these people be#o+e 0or Bant to be#o+e2 apparat#hiks. "or this very reason, these tBo theorists see the intelle#t&als as a #lass%in%for+ation, be#a&se their for+ of Bork] +akes the+ basi# to reprod&#ing the ine<&ality on Bhi#h the allo#ativ# b&rea&#ra#y rests. By sharing Bith intelle#t&als a legiti+ation resting on #lai+s to knoBledge and by #reating a strat&+ of knoBledge%e+poBered persons, the Party reinfor#es a privileged sit&ation for intelle#t&als, even as it reinfor#es its oBn 0!a&+an 198;a, 1;82 ,66 Dne need s#ar#ely look f&rther than the slogans @ he Party knoBs best@ or @ he Party is alBays right@ to see in their +ost blatant for+ knoBledge #lai+s that intelle#t&als #an easily #ontest, having the +eans to posit alternative val&es that +ight infl&en#e hoB reso&r#es ar# allo#ated and goals set. 1o#ialis+-s intelle#t&als ar# therefore both ne#essary and dangero&s, ne#essary be#a&se their skills ar# i+plied in deter+ining so#ial val&es, and dangero&s be#a&se they and the #enter have potentially different notions of Bhat intelle#t&al pra#ti#e sho&ld #onsist of. Ehen/as often happens/these notions do not agree, a #onfli#t e+erges over Bho has die a&thority to define intelle#t&al Bork, those Bho do it, or those Bho order it. "or those Bho order it, +atters are #lear. "ro+ the heyday of 1talin-s #&lt&r#%#Iar >hdanov onBard, the apparat&s sees #&lt&ral prod&#tion as a +inor #ategory of ideologi#al a#tivis+ and the f&n#tion of art as indo#trination, providing #lear ansBers to so#ial #pestions 0Con%de# and Pad&nov 198;, 172. !o+anian Briters report endless e4#hanges Bith #ensors, Bho #all into <&estion everything fro+ Bords &sed to the artist-s N&dg+ent in fra+ing a story. "or e4a+ple, @Ehy do#s the hero die at the endK Ehat do yo& +ean, he-s killedK A #ri+eK !&t #ri+es are not representative of o&r so#ialist spirit. . . . Hey, yo& #an-t hang the felloB, he-s the driver for the #olle#tive far+AA@ 01ola#ol& 1988, 682. 3n all this Be se# the tangled relation betBeen a Party that thinks of itself as dire#ting all aspe#ts of so#iety a##ording to spe#ialiIed knoBledge and the potential revolt of those Bho+ it has #reated to help in this task.67 hese e4a+ples +erely &nders#ore the point +ade +ore abstra#tly in +y 3ntrod&#tion, intelle#t&als are defined as o##&pying the @spa#e of legiti+ation,@ a spa#e of vital #on#ern to a b&rea&#ra#y needing perfor+an#es and #o+plian#e fro+ its s&bNe#ts. All intelle#t&als Bork Bith the%sy+boli# +eans that for+ s&bNe#tivitiesL their talents ar# essential to =D'EL3*F 1DC3AL31= A*' 1DC3AL31 CUL U!AL PDL3 3C1 89 poBer, and above all to any leadership or any period in Bhi#h a sy+boli#% ideologi#al +ode of #ontrol is i+portant. he nat&re of intelle#t&al Bork is s&#h that all neB regi+es +&st seek to #apt&re its prod&#ers and its prod&#tsL so#ialist regi+es are no e4#eption. o the <&estion of Bhether so#ialist syste+s shoB a spe#ial for+ of this general tr&th, 3 have s&ggested that the do&ble legiti+ation of Party and intelle#t&als via knoBledge #onstit&tes one pe#&liarity

in the Party-s relation to intelle#t&al Bork. Another #o+es fro+ so#ialis+-s @laBs of +otion.@ 3 have proposed as so#ialis+-s @+otor@ the syste+i# drive to a##&+&late allo#ativ# poBer, rooted in a##&+&lating +eans of prod&#tion. 3s there so+e Bay in Bhi#h #&lt&re-s +eans of prod&#tion ar# s&s#eptible also to this tenden#yK 3f one asks Bhat #onstit&te the +eans of #&lt&ral prod&#tion, one i++ediately thinks 0besides s&#h things as printing presses, paper, paints, and the other +aterial +eans2 of #ertain for+s of a##&+&lated knoBledge that serve as +eans of f&rther #&lt&ral prod&#tion, di#tionaries, en#y#lopedias and other #o+pendia, p&bli#ation of do#&+entary so&r#es, treatises and Borks of synthesis/s&#h as the offi#ial fo&r%vol&+e History of !o+ania p&blished in the 19:5s and intended as the point of orientation for all s&bse<&ent Briting in that dis#ipline. 3n so#ialist Eastern "X&rop#, all these Bere prod&#ed by large #olle#tives, in p&bli# instit&tions, benefiting fro+ h&ge allo#ations of f&nds for #&lt&re. here is every reason to believe that these proNe#ts Bere Bon for their instit&tes thro&gh the pro#esses of #o+petition and bargaining des#ribed above 0se# also #hapter :2. he i+portan#e of these #&lt&ral e<&ivalents of heavy ind&stry +eans that they +&st be prod&#ed by @reliable@ instit&tions &nder the g&idan#e of the Party. o se# the apparat&s as having a #ons#io&s #on#ern Bitli +onopoly over s&#h +eans of prod&#tion do#s not see+ far%fet#hed. here is another +eans of #&lt&ral prod&#tion, +ore basi# even than the ones N&st +entioned, lang&age. "or a Party bent on transfor+ing #ons#io&sness, #ontrol over lang&age is one of the +ost vital re<&ire+ents. Fross #apt&res an aspe#t of this Bhen he Brites that #o++&nist r&le #hanges lang&age so it no longer refle#ts or represents realityL +etaphor be#o+es +ore i+portant than prosai# dis#o&rse, and +agi#al Bords repla#e des#riptive and logi#al ones 0Fross 1988, 67:%6782. B&t Bhereas Fross sees this as an aspe#t of the destr&#tion oflang&age, 3 see it as the retooling of lang&age <&a +eans of ideologi#al prod&#tion. 3 Bo&ld develop this tho&ght f&rther Bith Bakhtin-s dis#&ssion of a&thoritative dis#o&rse/any religio&s, +oral, politi#al, parental dis#o&rse, Bhi#h de+ands that Be a#knoBledge it and +ake it o&r oBn,

95 =D'EL3*F 1DC3AL31= A*' 1DC3AL31 CUL U!AL PDL3 3C1 @Ee en#o&nter it Bith its a&thority already f&sed to it@ 01981, 7962. his dis#o&rse is not one to be sele#ted fro+ a range of e<&ivalent possibilities, it i+poses itself and de+ands &n#onditional allegian#e. he se+anti# str&#t&re of s&#h dis#o&rse is stati#, and its ter+s have been #leansed of all b&t one +eaningL it is often +arked by a spe#ial lang&age or a different s#ript 0ibid., 7972.69 Fross +ight have said, then, that so#ialist poBer seeks to +ake all lang&age a&thoritative dis#o&rse, to red&#e the +eanings of Bords, to straitNa#ket the+ into sing&lar intentions, and to pre#l&de any &se of lang&age that per+its +&ltiple +eanings.6$ Altho&gh one #o&ld arg&e that all regi+es ar# #on#erned Bith lang&age to so+e e4tent, 3 Bo&ld hold that so#ialist ones lie at the e4tre+e on this di+ension. As a res&lt of the atte+pt to #reate an @a&thoriI%ed@ lang&age, all lang&age be#o+es a terrain shaped by poBer and #ontested by those Bho resist the #entraliIation of +eanings. Prod&#ers of Bords pop&late these Bords Bith obNe#tives that +ight be s&spe#tL the #enter +&st therefore keep lang&age &nder #onstant s&rveillan#e. Party offi#ials &nderstand Bakhtin very Bell, U3Vn the +ake&p of al+ost every &tteran#e spoken by a so#ial person/fro+ a brief response in #as&al dialog&e to +aNor verbal%ideologi#al Borks 0literary, s#holarly and others2/a signifi#ant n&+ber of Bords #an be identified that are i+pli#itly or e4pli#itly ad+itted as so+eone else-s, and that are trans+itted by a variety of different +eans. Eithin the arena of al+ost every &tteran#e an intense intera#tion and str&ggle betBeen one-s oBn and another-s Bord is being Baged, a pro#ess in Bhi#h they oppose or dialogi#ally interani+ate ea#h other. 1 he &tteran#e so #on#eived is a #onsiderably +ore #o+ple4 and dyna+i# organis+ than it appears Bhen #onstr&ed si+ply as a tiling that arti#&lates the intention of the person &ttering it, Bhi#h is to see the &tteran#e as a dire#t, single%voi#ed vehi#le for e4pression 0Bakhtin 1981, 7$9/7$$2. Ehat is tr&e of everyday &tteran#e is tr&e in spades for &tteran#es in the @spa#e of legiti+ation.@ his is so be#a&se Be ar# not speaking, in the end, of lang&age as +erely a +eans for #&lt&ral prod&#tion, b&t of both lang&age and #&lt&ral prod&#ts as vehi#les for the for+ation of #ons#io&sness and s&bNe#tivity, as +eans of ideologi#al prod&#tion, of prod&#ing ideologi#al effe#ts. 3f, as 3 arg&ed in the 3ntrod&#tion, #hara#teristi# of so#ialist so#ieties is their none4istent hege+ony and their fragile legiti+a#y, then%#onstant v&lnerability to the pers&asiveness of alternative visions, in#l&ding those that e+anate fro+ the EestL and if Fra+s#i is right that any alternative vision &nder+ines the for+ation of hege+onyL then no =D'EL3*F 1DC3AL31= A*' 1DC3AL31 CUL U!AL PDL3 3C1 91 so#ialist regi+e #an #o&ntenan#e the prod&#tion of ideologi#al effe#ts #ontrary to its p&rposes, effe#ts that Bo&ld reveal its nakedness. Beyond even this, hoBever, the #ategories of lang&age and of dis#o&rse prod&#e the so#ial Borld. Lang&age and dis#o&rse ar# a+ong the &lti+ate +eans of prod&#tion. 1o#ial obNe#ts, #ons#io&sness, so#ial life itself, ar# #onstit&ted in dis#o&rse, Bhi#h #an #reate obNe#ts for+erly @&nthinkable@ 0s&#h as a @patrioti# #o++&nist@2 and #an &nder+ine the @thinkability@ of e4isting obNe#ts 0s&#h as a @fas#ist patriot@ ULa#la& =1, 16%17V2. Altho&gh so#ial

obNe#ts, #ons#io&sness, and so#ial life are also #onstit&ted thro&gh pra#ti#es that are not arti#&lated in dis#o&rse 0Bo&rdi#& 19;;2, in so#ialist syste+s lang&age takes on spe#ial signifi#an#e as a #onstit&tor of so#ial life pre#isely be#a&se a neB order of so#iety%generating pra#ti#es has not been reg&lariIed, do#s not f&n#tion reliably.6: "or a politi#al regi+e s&#h as this, Bhere dis#o&rse has a disproportionately prod&#tive role, and espe#ially for one Bhose self% pro#lai+ed task is to #hange so#iety, the prod&#ers of dis#o&rse +&st be in#orporated Bithin the regi+e. he arg&+ent abo&t so#ialis+-s @Beak state@ +akes this even +ore i+perative, for it s&ggests that only in dis#o&rse #an the poBer and &nity of s&#h a state be a#hieved, @ he state is at best a frag+ented s&bNe#t that i+agines itself a &nity. . . . 'espite its i+aginary basis, hoBever, UitV proves +ore solid than any other reality and its effe#ts ar# stronger than any #le+ent of the real@ 0Anagnost 1988, 72. 3 have been speaking so far of a str&ggle to #ontrol lang&age betBeen agents of Party r&le and intelle#t&als as a gro&p. B&t this str&ggle +erely e4plains Bhy #&lt&re is so politi#iIed in so#ialist so#ieties. Ehat +y earlier dis#&ssion of so#ialis+-s logi# s&ggests, hoBever, and Bhat 3 hope to shoB in so+e of these #hapters, is that the +ore telling arena of #onfli#t is Bithin the intelle#t&alsterrain. he Party sets &p an ed&#ational syste+ that prod&#es +ore intelle#t&als than its @ideologi#al apparat&s@ #an absorb. hose Bhose thinking is #ongenial and Bhose a+bitions per+it a #ollaboration Bith poBer enter into allian#e Bith it. he re+ainder, Bhose preferen#e or &ns&itability e4#l&des the+, ar# left Bith a sense that they ar# entitled to infl&en#e/on the basis of their knoBledge/b&t they #an a#hieve it only by #lai+ing that their knoBledge or artisti# #reativity #onstit&tes separate gro&nds for stat&s. "or the+, that is, infl&en#e depends &pon their gaining re#ognition for their #&lt&ral a&thority as so+ething independent of the politi#al stat&s to Bhi#h the Party Bants to restri#t the e4er#ise of #&lt&ral poBer. 1&#h persons are likely to find the ro&te to infl&en#e blo#ked by 96 =D'EL3*F 1DC3AL31= A*' 1DC3AL31 CUL U!AL PDL3 3C1 other intelle#t&als Bhose representations to b&rea&#rats ar# +ore #onvin#ingL by those Bith better personal #onne#tionsL by those Bho are older and better knoBnL by those Bho have +anaged to se#&re s#ats in the instit&tions thro&gh Bhi#h #&lt&re-s prod&#tion is s&pposedly reg&lated. his sets &p an opposition betBeen prod&#ers of #&lt&re Bho feel the+selves e4#l&ded fro+ infl&en#e and those they see as blo#king their path. heir opposition be#o+es a #ontest for larger allo#ations of the reso&r#es for #&lt&ral poBer. 3t is not, 3 stress, a #ontest si+ply betBeen @intelle#t&als@ and @the PartyL- or 0pa#e )agarlitsky U1988, 15712 betBeen @govern+ent ideologists@ and @dissidents@/altho&gh on the s&rfa#e, the politi#iIation of #&lt&re +akes it look as if those Bho defend their #&lt&ral a&thority ar# doing so fro+ a dissident position. he #ontest is, rather, betBeen fra#tions of the #&lt&ral elite, differentially e+poBered Bithin a syste+ of do+ination that re#N&ir#s and s&pports the prod&#tion of #&lt&re Bhile alloBing infl&en#e to only so+e of its prod&#ers. he @spa#e of legiti+ation,@ the @intelle#t&al territory@ referred to in the 3ntrod&#tion, has different positions in it, then. 3 define these by a +i4 of entitle+ents on tBo #oordinates, +odified fro+ Bo&rdie&. Ehereas Bo&rdie& defines the so#ial spa#e of #&lt&ral @distin#tion@ in "ran#e as a tBo%di+ensional one Bhose #oordinates are e#ono+i# and #&lt&ral #apital, ea#h of the+ +atters

of degree 0fig. 12, 3 see the spa#e of #&lt&ral politi#s in so#ialis+ as fra+ed by the tBo #oordinates of politi#al stat&s and #&lt&ral a&thority 0see fig. 62.@ he politi#al di+ension #onsists of holding for+al b&rea&#rati# offi#e 0=inister of C&lt&re and Ed&#ation, a#tivist for #&lt&re and propaganda, head of a resear#h instit&te, dire#tor of a p&blishing ho&se, dean of a &niversity2 and.or titles having so+e politi#al signifi#an#e 0president of the Eriters- Union, head of the *ational Co++ission of Historians, president of the A#ade+y, et#.2. he @#&lt&ral@ di+ension #onsists of re#ogniIed #&lt&ral 0or s#ientifi# or #reative2 a&thority/novelists and poets Bhose Borks have be#o+e Bell knoBn, #riti#s Bith a reg&lar #ol&+n in a #&lt&ral p&bli#ation, +e+bers of the A#ade+y 0in !o+ania, +ost +eaningf&l if ele#ted betBeen abo&t 19$$ and 19;$2, Bidely p&blished s#holars, &niversity professors often appealed to for television or radio talks, and so forth. Position is +ore diffi#&lt to define on this #oordinate than on the other be#a&se assess+ents of #&lt&ral a&thority ar# divided by the politi#iIation of the #&lt&ral field, to Bhi#h later #hapters give Bitness. hat is, people-s fa#tional allegian#es infl&en#e Bhose #&lt&ral a&thority they Bill a#knoBledge. Even so, the a&thority of #ertain persons is re#og% "ig&re 6 ] Coordinates of the 1pa#e of C&lt&ral Politi#s in 1o#ialis+ Adapted fro+ Bo&rdie& 1989, 168%169. Bo&rdie&-s diagra+ e4tends its tBo a4es totor+ fo&r <&adrantsL it labels the verti#al a4is @#apital vol&+e@ and the horiIontal a4is ce#ono+i# #apital. %#&lt&ral #apital@ and @%e#ono+i# #apital.c#&lt&ral #apital.@ =y ai+ being si+pler than his, 3 #ollapse this into the ill&strative diagra+ shoBn in figs. 1 and 6, ea#h a4is representing vol&+e of @#apital@ fro+ loB to high. 99 =D'EL3*F 1DC3AL31= A*' 1DC3AL31 CUL U!AL PDL3 3C1 niIed by all fa#tions 0for e4a+ple, tBo Bho Bill be dis#&ssed in #hapters : and ;, historian Prodan and philosopher *oi#a2, as the #o+petition to @#apt&re@ these s#holars #onfir+s. he pro#esses that take pla#e Bithin this field of positions are #r&#ially fra+ed by the +e#hanis+s of b&rea&#rati# allo#ation. his +eans tBo things. "irst, +any parti#ipants strive #ontin&ally to N&stify #lai+s to reso&r#es, and in this pro#ess ideas abo&t the *ation and @proper@ representation of its val&es play a vital part. 1e#ond, there is a tenden#y for those p&rs&ing greater #&lt&ral a&thority to seek so+e degree of &pBard +obility on the politi#al di+ension, so as to ens&re a##ess to the reso&r#es ne#essary for their a#tivity. hat is, the organiIation of the so#iety presses #&lt&ral prod&#ers to #onvert so+e of their #&lt&ral a&thority into politi#al stat&s, Bhi#h +ay then be &sed to a&g+ent #&l% t&ral standing thro&gh in#reased a##ess to reso&r#es. 3t is the rare intelle#t&al, free of instit&tional press&res and laden Bith #&lt&ral a&thority/s&#h as Prodan and *oi#a, N&st +entioned/Bho #an #ontin&e to Bork at the loBer right%hand side of fig&re 6 Bitho&t seeking to +igrate northBard Bithin that spa#e. Be#a&se #&lt&ral and knoBledge #lai+s are intelle#t&als- only N&stifi#ation, hoBever/that is, be#a&se they are #onstrained fro+ dire#tly e4er#ising politi#al poBer/the #&rren#y of the #o+petition Bill be a defense of #&lt&re, of @a&thenti#@ val&es, of standards of professionalis+ and knoBledge. 03n the sa+e Bay, Elias arg&es, Fer+an intelle#t&als in the eighteenth and nineteenth #ent&ries, e4#l&ded fro+ bo&rgeois a#tivity, took their stand on the val&es of

#&lt&re and the spirit U19;8, 8%66S.2 Dften these Bill be Brapped aro&nd definitions of national identity and national val&es. he stakes are Bho gets to Brite the s#hool +an&als that present a parti#&lar version of reality, or to prod&#e an offi#ial history, or to define the literary @#anon,@ or to render the lineage of philosophi#al knoBledgeL Bhose books Bill be p&blished, and in Bhat press r&nsL Bhose proNe#ts Bill re#eive invest+ents that Bill fa#ilitate still other invest+ents laterL Bhose Borks Bill re#eive priIes/val&able not be#a&se they in#rease sales and, therefore, in#o+es, as in the #apitalist Borld, b&t be#a&se the +ere re#eipt of the priIe enhan#es one-s #lai+s to f&t&re allo#ations and pro+otes the val&es on Bhi#h one has staked one-s Bork 0Bhi#h +ay in#l&de, #overtly, val&es of resistan#e to the totaliIing effe#ts of Party r&le2. A&thors &nder so#ialis+ need +ass p&bli#s to b&y their Borks less than they need the attention of b&% rea&#rats Bho Bill f&nd their proNe#ts. 3 e+phasiIe again, as 3 did in the 3ntrod&#tion, that 3 do not Bish to =D'EL3*F 1DC3AL31= A*' 1DC3AL31 CUL U!AL PDL3 3C1 9$ red&#e all intelle#t&al a#tivity to a <&est for poBer. 1o+e prod&#ers of #&lt&re ar# indeed opport&nists looking for a ro&te to poBer, b&t +ost are deeply #o++itted to the notion of tr&th or val&e that they serve and for Bhi#h they passionately arg&e. o prefer one over another val&e, hoBever, one over another tr&th, is politi#al in these syste+s, be#a&se these val&es and tr&ths are reprod&#ed only thro&gh #lai+s +ade in their behalf and allo#ations +ade in their na+e. 1&#h preferen#es and str&ggles also have politi#al #onse<&en#es, for as gro&ps #o+pete, those Bho Bin +ay do so by depriving their adversaries of Bhat is ne#essary for #&lt&ral prod&#tion. hey +ay thereby also a##o+plish the #enter-s Bork of disabling alternative fo#i of #&lt&ral a#tivity. As different kinds of intelle#t&als strive to s&pport their val&es Bith b&rea&#rati# o&tlays, or to Bin b&rea&#rati# positions the+selves, they +&st so+eti+es #hallenge the hierar#hies already in pla#e, atta#king persons Bho already hold or see+ to be gaining i+portant titles and offi#es. here ar# several +eans for s&#h an atta#kL 3 Bish to +ention three that relate to the above dis#&ssion. hese three ar# invo#ations of +arket prin#iples, #on#ern Bith an a&dien#e, and allian#e Bith the Eest. 3 s&ggested above that &n#ontrolled +arkets ar# anathe+a to so#ialist syste+s be#a&se they +ove reso&r#es horiIontally, rather than to and fro+ the #enter /the +ove+ent proper to r#distrib&tiv# syste+s. he +arket as a distrib&tive +e#hanis+ disr&pts the #onstit&ted hierar#hies of #o++and. '&ring periods of refor+, Bhen +arket +e#hanis+s begin to affe#t the sphere of #&lt&re, talk abo&t the +arket +ay reveal an4iety abo&t its a#t&al or potential effe#ts in disr&pting #onstit&ted hierar#hies 0se# #hapter $2. Even Bhen #&lt&re is ins&lated fro+ +arkets in fa#t, its real effe#ts also +ake the +arket &sef&l sy+boli#ally, for opposing Bhoever sits higher &p on the ladder. o invoke the +arket + arg&+ents abo&t #&lt&ral prod&#tion is to obNe#t to the #onstit&ted hierar#hy, to seek to &nder+ine it by invoking a rationality different fro+ the one of #entraliIed allo#ations. !eferen#es to the +arket in #&lt&ral str&ggles often a##o+pany +ore dire#tly relevant <&estions abo&t the val&es Briters or s#holars sho&ld be i+ple+enting/sho&ld novels treat only the+es relevant to so#ialis+, Bhat pla#e sho&ld ethni# identity have in a #lass analysis, #an

historians do p&re intelle#t&al history or +&st they also bring in the for#es and relations of prod&#tion, is =ar4is+ the only for+ of philosophy, by Bhat standards do#s one eval&ate a pie#e of Briting or a Bork of art, and so on. J&estions of that kind and referen#es to the +arket both have the sa+e effe#t, they #hal% 9: =D'EL3*F 1DC3AL31= A*' 1DC3AL31 CUL U!AL PDL3 3C1 lenge an opponent-s position and seek to deny it a higher pla#e in the str&#t&re of #&lt&ral #o++and.68 1e#ond, 3 observed above that prod&#ers- attention goes +ore to the b&rea&#rats fro+ Bho+ they re#eive allo#ations than to the Bider p&b%lieL yet this is an oversi+plifi#ation. Are there #ir#&+stan#es in Bhi#h spe#ialists in #&lt&re Bill Bant or be #o+pelled to take their #ase to the%p&bli#, to b&ild or appeal to an a&dien#eK 3n general, they Bo&ld have little reason to do so for p&rposes of +arketability, Bhi#h is of less i+portan#e than in #apitalis+, their reven&es #o+e +ore fro+ the #enter than fro+ sales. o the e4tent that +arket infl&en#es enter the #&lt&ral sphere and in#rease its #o++odifi#ation 0as happened in !o+ania after 19;8, for e4a+ple2, this Bill initially intensify the s#ra+ble for the feB reso&r#es the #enter still allo#ates. Attention +ay also t&rn, hoBever, to a +ass a&dien#e, partly to Bin a readership and partly to #onvin#e the #enter to allo#ate +ore, on the gro&nds that one-s a#tivities are rea#hing a Bide p&bli# and +ight have an effe#t on +ass #ons#io&sness. Beyond this, prod&#ers of #&lt&re +ay appeal to an a&dien#e as part of for+ing a @#ogniIant p&bli#@ 0se# 3ntrod&#tionL also #hapter 92 Bho Bill re#ogniIe their #lai+s to #&lt&ral a&thority. 1o+e of these #lai+s +ay s&pport val&es alternative to those of the #enterL in s&#h #ases, appeals to an a&dien#e Bill #hallenge #onstit&ted hierar#hies not by for+ing p&bli# @de+and@ 0as Bo&ld happen Bith +ass appeals in a +arket syste+2 b&t by setting &p fo#i of +eaning%prod&#tion o&tside the #ontrol of the apparat&s. Ee Bo&ld e4pe#t the a&thorities to obstr&#t or disable appeals of this kind. hird, in so#ialist #&lt&ral politi#s the #hallengers to e4isting hierar#hies dispose of a potent Beapon that is, in fa#t, #onstit&tive of +any of the arg&+ents, invo#ation of @the Eest.@ Be#a&se the logi# of so#ialist syste+s is opposed to the rationality of Bestern politi#al e#ono+i#sL be#a&se s&#h Bestern%linked notions as @+arket@ and @#o+peten#e@ are antitheti#al to the b&rea&#rati# prin#iples of allo#ative #o++and and patronageL be#a&se any ref&sal to a##ept the Party-s r&les and val&es a&to+ati#ally looks, to Besterners, like dissiden#eL and be#a&se the so#ieties of Eastern E&rope are s&baltern so#ieties Bith s&b% altern #&lt&res str&ggling for re#ognition in a Borld do+inated by the +ore poBerf&l Eest, for all these reasons, @the Eest@ is a nat&ral parti#ipant in #&lt&ral str&ggles. Eithin any #ontest a+ong Eastern E&ropean intelle#t&als, a fra#tion that is trying to i+prove a disadvantageo&s sit&ation +ay end by rhetori#ally allying itself Bith the Eest, Bhether by #hoi#e or by defa&lt. his allian#e inserts into str&ggles over #&lt&ral =D'EL3*F 1DC3AL31= A*' 1DC3AL31 CUL U!AL PDL3 3C1 9; val&es a representation of interests and identities that ti#s @the *ation@ Bith the Bestern heritage. he allian#e has also itself #onstit&ted a reso&r#e for it has often bro&ght e4ternal press&re to bear on leaderships that dis#overed, d&ring the 19;5s, hoB v&lnerable their e#ono+ies Bere to the no4io&s effe#ts

of Bestern penetration. 3 ret&rn to the +atter of so#ialis+-s dyna+i# and its i+pli#ations for #&lt&re. Contests of the above kind Bithin the Borld of #&lt&ral prod&#tion, #ontests that Noin intelle#t&als in str&ggle Bith one another and that link seg+ents of the+ Bith the Party or in opposition to it, +ay &lti+ately serve to #on#entrate +eans of sy+boli# prod&#tion Bithin the apparat&s of poBer. Clai+s and #o&nter#lai+s dire#ted at the b&rea&#ra#y for allo#ations that Bill s&stain #&lt&re-s prod&#ers ar# Bhat ani+ate the abstra#t tenden#y, Bhose syste+i# rationale 3 have dis#&ssed earlier in the #hapter, for the #enter to a#<&ire @allo#ative #apa#ity@ even over the sy+boli# #onstit&tion of so#iety. 1&#h #ontests also ani+ate the #orollary tenden#y for #entral #ontrol to groB by disabling or destroying alternate fo#i of prod&#tion and a##&+&lation 0dis#&ssed earlier in this #hapter2. Leaders trying to install a neB sy+boli# order Bill ai+ to destroy or absorb into the politi#al apparat&s alternative orders and alternative +eanings not yet bent to a neB Bill. Ears ar# de#lared on #&lt&ral a##&+&lations of an older era 0intelle#t&als are p&rged, older a&thors ar# re+oved fro+ bookshelves, s#hool te4ts ar# reBritten2, as neB a##&+&lations are sloBly a+assed to repla#e the+. 69 he possibility of different #lai+s and N&stifi#ations, of a different #onstr&#tion of reality, that these older for+s #ontain #annot be per+itted to flo&rish. he e4tre+e of this de#lared Bar is to be fo&nd in Pol Pot-s )a+p&#hea or in Cea&Mes#&-s !o+ania of die 1985s, Bith the raIing of #h&r#hes and b&ildings and entire villages that signify an @o&t+oded@ so#ial Borld. hese pro#esses of the #entraliIation of +eanings and the atte+pted disable+ent of in#onvenient older signifi#an#es are ill&strated in #hapters 9 thro&gh ;. 3t re+ains only to set the stage for the+ by red&#ing the abstra#t arg&+ents of this #hapter to the #on#rete for+ they took in !o+ania betBeen 199; and 1989, and by des#ribing hoB ideas abo&t the *ation Bere effa#ed fro+ !o+anian politi#s and #&lt&ral life, only to reappear at their very #enter.

CHAP E! H!EE The Su ression and Reassertion of National !alues in Socialist Romania 98 K1 +e+ber of a verbal #o++&nity #an ever find Bords in the lang&age that are ne&tral, e4e+pt fro+ the aspirations and eval&ations of the other, &ninhabited by the other-s voi#e. Dn the #ontrary, he re#eives the Bord by the other-s voi#e and it re+ains filled Bith that voi#e. He intervenes in his oBn #onte4t fro+ another #onte4t, already penetrated by the other-s intentions. His oBn intention finds a Bord already lived in. /=ikhail Bakhtin A not very be#o+ing pra#ti#e has developed, #o+rades, to look only at Bhat is being done abroad, to resort for everything to i+ports. his betrays also a #ertain #on#ept of #onsidering everything that is foreign to be better, a #ertain prostration before Bhat is foreign, and espe#ially before Uthe EestV. i+e has #o+e for Uresorting firstV to Uo&rV oBn for#es and only afterBards to appeal to i+port. here are books printed in tens of tho&sands of #opies and Bhi#h +ake an apology of the bo&rgeois Bay of life, Bhile good !o+anian books #annot be printed be#a&se of la#k of paper. /*i#olae Cea&Mes#&1UPP!E113D* A*' !EA11E! 3D* D" *A 3D*AL (ALUE1 99 he present #hapter has a tBo%fold agenda in relation to those before it. 6 "irst, #hapter 1 has shoBn the #o+ple4 field of national sy+bols that intelle#t&als and politi#ians #reated prior to Eorld Ear 33. By Bhat +eans did the 1oviet% ba#ked regi+e of !o+ania after 199; seek to appropriate and displa#e that poBerf&l dis#o&rse on the *ationK HoB did that dis#o&rse itself, partially a&tono+iIed in the instit&tional pra#ti#es of s#holars and the standards of effe#tive politi#al oratory, grad&ally reinsert itself into the neB =ar4ist%Leninist #onte4t in Bhi#h it Bas s&pposedly &nBel#o+eK he present #hapter addresses these <&estions, offering a <&i#k history of the s&ppression and ret&rn of the national idea in !o+anian politi#s after 199;. his history is essential to part of +y arg&+ent in #hapter 9, Bhere 3 s&ggest that the national dis#o&rse Bas so poBerf&lly instit&ted in !o+anian #&lt&ral and politi#al life that it at length s&bverted the dis#o&rse of =ar4is+, on Bhi#h Party r&le Bas based. 1e#ond, #hapter 6 des#ribed three +odes of #ontrol 0re+&nerative, #oer#ive, and sy+boli#%ideologi#al2, as Bell as several ele+ents of a +odel for analyIing real%so#ialist syste+s, their tenden#y to +a4i+iIe the reso&r#es at the disposal of the politi#al apparat&s, their @e#ono+ies of shortage,@ and the intrinsi# str&#t&ral Beakness of so#ialist states. Ehat did these general feat&res look like in the !o+ania of the 19:5s thro&gh 1985sK 3n ansBering this <&estion, 3 shoB hoB the sy+boli#%ideologi#al +ode of #ontrol preferred by Party leader *i#olae Cea&Mes#& #reated a parti#&larly strategi# spot for prod&#ers of #&lt&re. 3 also s&ggest several reasons Bhy the sy+boli# vehi#les e+phasiIed by the regi+e #a+e to be national rather than so+ething else, arg&ing in part that the very intensity and instit&tionaliIation of the lang&age of national identity in earlier years #ontrib&ted +&#h to its later sy+boli# for#e. Had a national dis#o&rse not be#o+e so ideologi#ally poBerf&l prior to Eorld Ear 33, #o++&nist elites Bo&ld not have been so #o+pelled to #apt&re this dis#o&rse for so#ialis+-s p&rposes.

!o+ania of the late 19;5s and 1985s Bas a #lassi# e4a+ple of a breed that Bas be#o+ing rarer d&ring those years, a neo%1talinist, highly #entraliIed #o++and e#ono+y #onfor+ing Bell to the b&rea&#rati#%allo#ative +odel. Al+ost none of the e4panded +arket for#es, de#entraliIed e#ono+i# de#ision% +aking, or politi#al pl&ralis+ e+erging + H&ngary, Poland, or the 1oviet Union gra#ed the !o+anian lands#ape. he state perse#&ted independent entreprene&rship, in#reasingly raided peasants- @private@ plots, +ilitariIed +any enterprises so as to 155 1UPP!E113D* A*' XA11E! 3D* D" *A 3D*AL (ALUE1 #he#k sliding o&tp&t, pla#ed e#ono+i# #ontra#ts &nder s&pervision by the Feneral Prose#&tor-s Dffi#e, and #hipped aBay at all enterprises- f&nds for paying Borkers 0se# Feorges#& 1988, ;$/;:2. o #all this a highly #entraliIed syste+ do#s not +ean, hoBever, that the #enter Bas o+nipotent. Like all #o++and e#ono+i#s, this one Bas host to verti#al bargaining +e#hanis+s and horiIontal #oll&sions Bith res&ltant hoarding, inflated invest+ent re<&ests, ende+i# shortage, and Bholly &nreliable infor+ation, all of Bhi#h di+inished the poBer of the%#enter. Ehen the severity of Poland-s international debt aro&sed general #onsternation as of abo&t 1985, the !o+anian party leadership la&n#hed a #a+paign to repay !o+ania-s debt ahead of s#hed&le. his @debt #risis@ e4a#erbated the Beakness of the politi#al #enter, Bhi#h Bas at the +er#y of its s&bordinate &nits for infor+ation and for the reso&r#es to pay off the debt. he repay+ent #a+paign diverted to e4port #hannels a signifi#ant share of prod&#tion, Bhi#h Bo&ld ordinarily have entered internal redistrib&tive #ir#&its to keep the e#ono+y and the pop&lation in healthy #ondition, and this f&rther aggravated internal shortages. '&ring this de#ade, then, there Bas &n&s&ally high tension betBeen top%level Party offi#ials and +anagers, striving for +a4i+al #ontrol over reso&r#es and reliable infor+ation, and &nits loBer doBn the hierar#hy of prod&#tion and ad+inistration, s#ra+bling to hoard the reso&r#es ne#essary to f&lfill ever%ta&ter plans Bhose nonf&lfill+ent dreB ever +ore stringent san#tions. A+id the @overorganiI#d #haos@ 0in e#ono+ist =arvin Sa#kson-s phrase2 of !o+ania-s politi#al e#ono+y, its Beak #enter appeared strong only thro&gh heavy resort to #oer#ion, in#reasingly #hara#teristi# of !o+ania in the 1985s. 3n addition to its &n&s&ally high #entraliIation, !o+ania Bas &n&s&al Bithin the blo# for its +ode of #ontrol. 3n its early days the !o+anian regi+e, like +ost others, #ontrolled its pop&lation #hiefly by for#e, Bhi#h Bas later rela4ed and briefly s&pple+ented in the 19:5s Bith a feB e#ono+i# in#entives 0SoBitt 19;1, 11:%11;2. he 19;5s &shered in a +ode of #ontrol that Bas pri+arily sy+boli#%ideologi#al, s&pple+ented and then overtaken by #oer#ive +eas&res in the 1985s. !e+&nerative #ontrol strategi#s d&ring those tBo de#ades Bere +ini+al. E4pendit&res on #ons&+ption s&ffered relative to a##&+&lation, Bhi#h re#eived the &n&s&ally high ratio of abo&t one%third of reven&es. 1 0 hat is, !o+ania-s leaders so&ght to over#o+e the st&ltifying effe#ts of #entraliIation on prod&#tion not thro&gh refor+s, b&t thro&gh for#ing &p the level of invest+ent.2 his +eans that sy+boli# appeals Bo&ld not invoke living standards. Alongside referen#es to =ar4ist%Leninist 1UPP!E113D* A*' !EA11E) 3D* D" *A 3D*AL (ALUE1 151

sloeans the +ost prevalent sy+boli# appeal in !o+ania, +ore than ill other states of the blo#, Bas to val&es of the *ation 0e.g., )ing 1985,1612. A sy+boli#%ideologi#al +ode of #ontrol is dis#ernible as early as 19:; Bith the establish+ent of a Co++ission on 3deology Bithin the Central Co++ittee, b&t its &ne<&ivo#al signal Bas tBo spee#hes by C#a&ses#& on S&ly : and 9, 19;1, referred to as the @S&ly theses.@ Co+plaining that ideologi#al a#tivity had lagged behind other develop+ents, the @dieses@ anno&n#ed an intensified #a+paign to raise the people-s #ons#io&sness toBards for+ing the @neB +an.@ Cea&ses#& e4pli#itly reNe#ted the &se of Bage differentials as in#entives for perfor+an#e 019;6 U19;1V, 6572, insisting that #ons#io&sness instead of +a% terial in#entives +&st +otivate effort, and he #riti#iIed servile i+itation of foreign, parti#&larly Bestern, habits. he e+phases of these spee#hes gathered for#e relentlessly thro&gh the end of the ne4t de#ade. Part of the task of this #hapter is to shoB Bhy, Bithin a sy+boli# +ode of #ontrol, national ideology gained pride of pla#e. he leadership did not restri#t itself to this, spee#hes fre<&ently invoked other notions, like the idea of progress, the i+portan#e of s#ien#e, an ethi# of Bork and prod&#tivity, and so forth. D##asionally one or another of these ideas, s&#h as the notion of tr&th, Bas taken &p +ore Bidely 0se# #hapter :2. Had #o++&nist and so#ialist ideas been +ore rob&st prior to the Party-s a##ession to poBer, these +ight have liad +ore Beight in its #onsolidation of r&le. 3n their absen#e, hoBever, the e4hortations that evoked ansBer and disagree+ent/hen#e, 3 +aintain, the +ost effe#tive ones/Bere those #on#erning the *ation. he leadership-s +ode of #ontrol therefore settled &pon the very dis#o&rse so ri#hly developed in the interBar years. 3n #onse<&en#e, a fier#e str&ggle ens&ed to define and #ontrol the national idea. he str&ggle be#a+e fier#e for three reasons. "irst, appeals to national solidarity #an potentially +obiliIe and thereby #ontrol laborL they Bere parti#&larly i+portant, then, to a leadership that #ontin&ally ref&sed to in#rease +arket for#es or the standard of living to +otivate labor. 1e#ond, the Party-s #o+petitors in the #&lt&ral intelligentsia Bere +asters of a national dis#o&rse deeply e+bedded Bithin pr##o++&nist instit&tions and pra#ti#es, and those #o+petitors #o&ld invoke national ideas in a +ore spa#io&s and in#l&sive +anner than the Party, Bhi#h Bas #o+pelled to tie national val&es rather narroBly to the Party-s role in !o+anian life. hird, the Party leadership-s partiality to national val&es +ade these a gro&nd for #ontests a+ong different fra#tions of the 156 1UPP!E113D* A*' !EA11E! 3D* D" *A 3D*AL (ALUE1 #&lt&ral elite #o+peting for reso&r#es fro+ the state. 1&#h #ontests be#a+e even +ore i+portant &nder the so#ialist state than they had been in interBar !o+ania, for after 199;, intelle#t&al a#tivity lost +ost of its ins&lation fro+ the politi#al sphere. Politi#al #onstraints on the +arket red&#ed the #han#es of independent livelihood for Briters, for e4a+pleL &niversity professors re#eived their salaries fro+ the state and Bere prohibited fro+ private t&toringL the state initially f&nded all instit&tions s&#h as +&se&+s and resear#h instit&tes, their e+ployees living off salaries pl&s the o##asional book p&blished thro&gh #ensored #hannels. Under these #ir#&+stan#es, anyone Bith an idea to p&rs&e had to get the attention of the

b&rea&#ra#y, often a##o+plished thro&gh @defense of the *ation.@ 3 sho&ld #larify tBo sets of ter+s 3 e+ploy in +y analysis. Altho&gh 3 repeatedly Brite of @the intelle#t&als@ and @the Party leadership,@ the division betBeen these gro&ps is not easy to establish. =ost of the @intelle#t&als@ 3 dis#&ss Bere also Party +e+bersL so+e Bere b&rea&#rats 0dire#tors of resear#h instit&tes, for e4a+ple2L +any Bo&ld ref&se the label @intelle#t&al@ to so+e persons 3 in#l&de in it, sin#e the title to @real@ intelle#t&al stat&s Bas itself a +atter of disp&te. At the sa+e ti+e, as #hapter 6 +ade #lear, these ter+s do not +ean that the story told in the rest of this book is a story of @intelle#t&als---- vers&s @the Party.@ Dn the #ontrary, +ost of the #onfli#ts in the #hapters to folloB o##&rred not betBeen @the Party@ and @intelle#t&als@ b&t betBeen fa#tions a+ong the prod&#ers of #&lt&re. Ehen 3 nonetheless &se ter+s like @the Party@ and @the intelle#t&als,@ 3 refer to a division betBeen the very top politi#al elite and +e+bers of the strat&+ of #&lt&re prod&#ers. he top Party leadership Bas relatively altho&gh not Bholly &nified, for &nder Cea&s#s#& differen#es of opinion at the top Bere ro&tinely p&rged. 3 prefer to speak of a @leadership@ rather than si+ply of C#a&ses#& be#a&se 3 do not think he Bas the only signifi#ant a#tor at the ape4 of !o+anian so#iety, he headed a #li<&e that held a great deal of poBer in a highly #entraliIed b&t Beak state.

*enera" $eve"opments in (omanian )o"itics +fter 19,"or !o+anian so#iety to a#<&ire the #hara#teristi#s 3 have o&tlined here/a neo%1talinist #entraliIed syste+ based on a sy+boli#%ideologi#al +ode of #ontrol/re<&ired an evol&tion having fo&r 1UPP!E113D* A*' !EA11E! 3D* D" *A 3D*AL (ALUE1 157 +ain #o+ponents. "irst, d&ring its initial tBo de#ades the regi+e e+bra#ed, Bith 1oviet s&pport, a 1talinist progra+ of for#ed ind&strialiIation, Bhi#h it then #ontin&ed against 1oviet Bishes by asserting so+e independen#e in the early 19:5s. Both the ind&strialiIation and the a&tono+y Bere essential to its f&t&re as a r#distrib&tiv# b&rea&#ra#y, +a4i+iIing the reso&r#es it #o&ld potentially #o++and. 1e#ond, the e#lipse of refor+ist i+p&lses Bithin the Party leadership pre#l&ded alternatives to a sy+boli#%ideologi#al +ode of #ontrol 0s&#h as the standard%of%living @so#ial #ontra#t@ that prevailed in H&ngary at the ti+e2. his Bas the o&t#o+e of the pro#ess Bhereby *i#ola# C#a&ses#& #onsolidated his poBer as Feneral 1e#retary betBeen 19:$ and 19;9. hird, relian#e on sy+boli# #ontrol ne#essitated #reating an intelligentsia that +ight s&pport the Party leadership-s ai+s and reliably prod&#e an ideologi#al #li+ate s&ited to its intentions. Ehen it be#a+e #lear that +any intelle#t&als Bere nonetheless &nBilling to play this ga+e, the leadership set abo&t destroying the bases of their poBer to oppose it. "o&rth, the as#endan#y of national sy+bols re<&ired displa#ing a rhetori# of #o++&nist internationalis+ Bith one of national val&es, evident in so+e <&arters as early as the late 19$5s and offi#ially san#tioned in 19:9%19::. he re+ainder of this #hapter dis#&sses ea#h of these fo&r pro#esses, the first tBo s&++arily and the others at greater length.

FROM MINION TO MAVERICK: THE ROMANIAN PARTY DRAWS AWAY FROM SOVIET DOMINATION
Ehen it began its as#ent to poBer in 1999, the !o+anian Co++&nist Party Bas +in&s#&le/proportionately the s+allest in all of Eastern E&rope 01hafir

198$, 6;2/n&+bering a tho&sand by so+e esti+ates and at +ost a feB tho&sand by others 0)ing 1985, 18, 782. he reasons for its Beakness are several, rooted in the so#ial str&#t&re of interBar !o+ania, the loB level of ind&strial develop+ent and #onse<&ently the s+all siIe of the ind&strial proletariat, the la#k of interest of the peasantry 0neBly enfran#hised and i+propriat#d2 in #o++&nist agitation, the banning of the Party in 1969 for pro+oting nationality str&ggles haIardo&s to the neB !o+anian state, 9 and the Party-s #onse<&ent attra#tiveness for the national +inorities, dissatisfied Eith their sit&ation in interBar !o+ania. he last of these reasons greatly ha+pered #o++&nist re#r&it+ent of the +aNority pop&lation, sin#e non%!o+anians Bere so pro+inent in its ranks,$ of the si4 "irst 1e#retaries of the Party fro+ 1961 to 1999, only the first Bas an ethni# 159 1UPP!E113D* A*' !EA11E! 3D* DE *A 3D*AL (ALUE1 !o+anian. his fa#t helps e4plain later disp&tes as to Bhether the Party Bas a @national@ or an @alien@ instit&tion. !e#r&it+ent Bas f&rther hindered be#a&se the Party-s illegal stat&s i+peded Barti+e partisan a#tivities of the sort that helped to b&ild a +ass base in C&goslavia and B&lgaria. he #hief e4perien#e of its leaders Bas not pra#ti#al politi#s b&t prison or te+porary e4ile, its @#ells@ not organiIational b&t the literal ones of the different prisons in Bhi#h its +e+bers developed solidarity. hese e4perien#es shaped the &nits for fa#tional rivalries a+ong the leadership, parti#&larly the division betBeen the @+&s#ovit#s,@ Bho had passed the years of illegality in =os#oB, and those Bho had spent that ti+e in !o+anian Nails. "or all these reasons, it is indisp&table that Bitho&t 1oviet s&pport d&ring the late 1995s, the !o+anian Co++&nist Party #o&ld not have attained poBer. =ore or less fir+ly ens#on#ed by 1998, the Party-s fa#tions #ontin&ed their strife &ntil the gro&p led by Fh#orghi&%'#N prevailed in the early 19$5s. his gro&p, do+inated by ethni# !o+anians and having p&rged its +ost poBerf&l SeBish and H&ngarian rivals, nonetheless s&b+itted to 1talin-s resol&te internationalis+ and #ontin&ed to a##ept, as had their opponents, 1oviet dire#tives #on#erning not only for#ed%draft ind&strialiIation b&t also the s&ppression of national val&es. A +eas&re of the deter+ination to ind&strialiIe is the ;98 per#ent in#rease in reso&r#es devoted to !o+anian ind&stry betBeen 19$5 and 19:$ 0CroBth#r 1988, :72. Altho&gh the Party leadership #o&ld present ind&strialiIation as a patrioti# ne#essity and in the *ation-s in% terests 0+&#h as so+e interBar politi#ians had arg&ed2, in +ost other visible respe#ts the leadership see+ed prepared to reno&n#e its nationality. !o+anian history books s&ddenly gave the 1lavs a pree+inent role in for+ing the !o+anian people and in +any i+portant past eventsL fa+o&s !o+anian Briters Bere shelved as &nbefitting the #ons#io&sness of so#ialistsL the Latin ling&isti# affiliations so #aref&lly re#reated by nineteenth%#ent&ry ling&ists Bere obs#&red in 19$7 by an orthographi# #hange, Bhi#h s&bstit&ted the !&ssian% derived i for the latinat# a/even in the na+e of the #o&ntry, +aking @!o+inia@ o&t ot on#e%Latin @!o+ania.@ Along Bith these #hanges #a+e a r#ori#ntation of !o+ania-s for+erly Eest E&ropean trade, tBo%thirds of Bhi#h Bent in 19$1 to the 1oviet Union and other EarsaB Pa#t #o&ntries 0 &rno#k 198:, 6712.: A part of this @trade@ took the for+ of Bar%reparation pay+ents to the 1oviet Union, +ediated thro&gh Noint #o+panies _s&vro+s2X Bhi#h enabled e4tensive 1oviet e4ploitation of

!o+anian raB and finished 1UPP!E113D* A*' !EA11E! 3D* D" *A 3D*AL (ALUE1 15$ goods. Another part #onsisted of e4ports fro+ both agri#&lt&re and the neBly developing +a#hine ind&stry to the +ore advan#ed e#ono+i#s in the blo#, East Fer+any and CIe#hoslovakia. Co+plaints soon e+erged fro+ these #o&ntries that s&bsidiIing &n#o+petitiv# !o+anian heavy ind&stry +ade no sense. As a res&lt, the 1oviets proposed restr&#t&ring intrablo# trade, !o+ania Bas to spe#ialiIe in agri#&lt&ral prod&#ts and in #ons&+er ind&stry, leaving heavy ind&stry to the CIe#hs and East Fer+ans, Bho Bere better at it. By the late 19$5s and into the 19:5s, these proposals Bere being voi#ed ever +ore fir+ly, Bith de+ands that !o+ania +odify its prod&#tion plans. his Bas the ba#kgro&nd to !o+ania-s so%#alled @de#laration of independen#e,@ a p&bli# state+ent iss&ed in April 19:9 that anno&n#ed the Party-s ref&sal to s&bordinate national needs to a s&pranational planning body in Bhi#h others Bo&ld di#tate the for+ of the #o&ntry-s e#ono+y. ; he de#laration insisted that intera#tion a+ong states Bithin the so#ialist #a+p +&st be based on respe#t for the sovereignty and integrity of ea#h. Ehen tBo +onths later a 1oviet geographer la&n#hed a regional integration plan for the loBer 'an&be that Bo&ld have divor#ed h&ge #h&nks of !o+ania-s and B&lgaria-s territory fro+ the rest of their e#ono+i#s, !o+anian e#ono+ists responded Bith s&#h o&trage that the plan Bas retra#ted. "ro+ this point on, ideas Bere dropped for integrating !o+ania into anything b&t loose agree+ents Bith other blo# #o&ntries. !o+ania-s trade Bithin the blo# de#lined fro+ tBo%thirds to &nder one%half by 19;5 0Linden 198:, 7$:2 Bhile e4#hanges Bith the Eest and Bith other developing nations shot &p. he #o&ntry-s reorientation to the Eest #&l+inated in its entry into the Feneral Agree+ent on ariffs and rade in 19;1 and the 3nternational =onetary "&nd and Eorld Bank in 19;6, trade preferen#es fro+ tli# E&ropean Co++&nity in 19;7, and U.1. =ost%"avor#d% *ation stat&s in 19;$. By 19;9 !o+ania-s trade Bith the Eest e4#eeded that Bith the blo# 0ibid.. 7:52. he @de#laration of independen#e@ had a n&+ber of far%rea#hing #onse<&en#es, one of Bhi#h is parti#&larly i+portant to the kind of analysis 3 e+ploy for !o+anian so#ialis+. By ref&sing in#orporation Bithin a larger planning &nit and by insisting on its right to develop heavy ind&stry, the !o+anian party apparat&s ass&red itself the +a4i+&+ possible a##&+&lation of politi#al and e#ono+i# reso&r#es, in#l&ding the a&tono+o&s #apa#ity to prod&#e +eans of prod&#tion. his +eant a larger, +ore #o+ple4, and potentially ri#her allo#ativ# b&rea&#ra#y, +ore #apable of a&tar#hi#ally prote#ting the floBs of val&e into 15: 1UPP!E113D* A*' !EA11E! 15* D" *A 3D*AL (ALUE1 and o&t of itself. Had heavy ind&stry been reserved for other blo# states, this Bo&ld have di+inished the pool of reso&r#es available for the !o+anian party to #ontrol. *#o%1talinis+ and high #entraliIation Bo&ld have had a d&bio&s f&t&re, rather than the bright one they Bere to enNoy. Another #onse<&en#e of !o+ania-s greater a&tono+y Bas its offi#ially #reating roo+ for a for+ of #o++&nist r&le that Bo&ld be national. his possibility Bas &nders#ored i++ediately folloBing the @de#laration of independen#e,@ Bith the p&bli#ation of a vol&+e of =ar4-s &np&blished +an&s#ripts entitled *otes on the !o+anians 0=ar4 19:92. 3n the+ =ar4 defended !o+ania-s anti%!&ssian

a#tivities in the nineteenth #ent&ry and its sovereignty rights/repeatedly brea#hed by !&ssia 0+ost re#ently in 19952/over Bessarabia. his te4t +ade it possible to i+agine a #o++&nist ideology #o+patible Bith the anti%!&ssian national feeling so Bidespread a+ong !o+anians 01hafir 198$, $52.

ELIMINATING REFORMISM
A se#ond pre#ondition of the !o+anian politi#al e#ono+y of the 19;5s and 1985s Bas the prior eli+ination of Bhat +ight be #alled refor+ist or te#hno#rati# for#es. he signifi#ant +o+ent for this #a+e Bith the death of Fh#orghi&%'#N in 19:$, Bhen a neB leadership +ight have broadened e4isting initiatives toBard de#entraliIation. Altho&gh Cea&ses#& e+erged as the neB Feneral 1e#retary Bitho&t apparent str&ggle, the poli#ies that Bo&ld #o+e to #hara#teriIe his reign Bere not #learly identifiable &ntil the 19;5s, s&ggesting that he re<&ired so+e ti+e to e4pel those Bho disagreed Bith the poli#ies he intended to folloB 0#o+pare, for e4a+ple, the a##o&nts in SoBitt 19;1 and CroBther 19882. 3nitially, it appeared that his leadership Bo&ld +ake roo+ for a te#hno#rati# elite/+ore broadly, for the @neB +iddle #lass@ of spe#ialists, skilled Borkers, te#hni#ians, s#ientists, and loB%level e#ono+i# +anagers Bho+ the ind&strialiIation pro#ess had spaBned 0see SoBitt 19;1, 18$2/at the e4pense of the high Party b&rea&#ra#y. 1&#h a develop+ent Bo&ld have f&rthered already%evident tenden#ies toBard repla#ing a pri+arily #oer#ive +ode of #ontrol Bith +ore re+&neration, in#l&ding Bage differentials and greater so#ial benefits for the pop&lation 0ibid., 18;%1892. =otivated in part by the i+balan#es and strains that a##o+panied years of overinvest+ent and stress &pon the #entral planning +e#hanis+ 0Sa#kson 1981, 6::2, Party planners and Cea&ses#& hi+self aired proposals that Bo&ld have in#reased the 1UPP!E113D* A*' !EA11E! 15* D" *A 3D*AL (ALUE1 15; level of #ons&+ption, +oderated a##&+&lation and invest+ent, introd&#ed a degree of ad+inistrative de#entraliIation and +anagerial a&tono+y, and ended the Central Co++ittee-s dire#t #ontrol over e#ono+i# planning 0se# CroBther 1988, 86%87L =ontias 19:;, ;92. Pre#isely these tenden#ies Bere at Bork in H&ngary-s Co++&nist party at the sa+e ti+e and Bere to #&l+inate in the 19:8 *eB E#ono+i# =e#hanis+, Bhi#h set H&ngary on the path toBard +arket so#ialis+.8 3n !o+ania, hoBever, it appears that the b&rea&#rati# opponents of these refor+s, fearing a re#onfig&ration of poBer to the benefit of persons loBer doBn the politi#al hierar#hy, s&##eeded in Binning the Feneral 1e#retary to their point of vieB 0CroBther 1988, 872. Altho&gh so+e identify the definitive e#lipse of refor+is+ by the re+oval of Pri+e =inister =a&rer in 19;9 0F#org#s#& 198:, $5%$12, Bell before that year it Bas apparent that a n#o% 1talinist line Bas r#e+erging and that re+&nerative #ontrols Bere being repla#ed by sy+boli#%ideologi#al ones 0see "is#her 1989, 159%1192. 3n 19;1. folloBing a visit to *orth )orea, China, and *orth (ietna+, C#a&s#s#&-s @S&ly theses@ ina&g&rated Bhat has been #alled his @+ini%#&lt&ral revol&tion,@ Bith reneBed e+phasis on so#ialist realis+ and atta#ks on intelle#t&als Bho failed to fall into line. 3n addition, the 19;1%19;$ "ive%Cear Plan r###ntraliI#d the e#ono+y and reneBed the +assive levels of invest+ent of earlier <&in<&ennia

01hafir 198$, 15;, 1612.@ hese develop+ents Bere very signifi#ant for the s&bNe#t of the present book. By abandoning a +ode of #ontrol based on +aterial in#entives and shifting to sy+boli#%ideologi#al ones, the Cea&ses#& leadership saved itself fro+ the de#entraliIation of poBer inherent in +any te#hno#rati# refor+s. =oreover, it in#reased the relative Beight of h&+anist and #&lt&ral intelle#t&als over te#hni#al ones. hat is, be#a&se there Bas no refor+ of the !o+anian politi#al e#ono+y, engineers, e#ono+ists, and enterprise +anagers lost so+e infl&en#e over the apparat&s Bhereas historians, Briters, and philosophers/the lin#hpins of ideologi#al and sy+boli# #reation/gained relative to the+. his is not to say that the for+er Bere noB in#onse<&ential b&t only to insist that the poli#ies Cea&ses#& adopted i+pli#itly #reated a privileged role for a #&lt&ral elite. "ro+ their #apa#ity to prod&#e pers&asive i+ages of the so#ial Borld Bo&ld #o+e the sy+bols for his r&le. 3f Be think of the field of politi#king as a lands#ape on Bhi#h different so#ial for#es rise &p like hills and +o&ntains, their height proportional to their infl&en#e in the field, then Cea&ses#&-s #onsolidation of poBer +ade the knoll of the #&lt&ral elite into a s+all +o&ntain. his 158 1UPP!E113D* A*' !EA11E! 3D* D" *A 3D*AL (ALUE1 +eant that the <&estion of Bho Bo&ld stand at its s&++it had s&ddenly greater +o+ent than had been tr&e a feB years before. ogether Bith the neB Feneral 1e#retary had arisen a neB #onfig&ration of opport&nity for the prod&#ers of #&lt&re. hro&gho&t the period of his leadership, hoBever, they Bere in#reasingly to fa#e three proble+s. he Party leadership Bo&ld e4ert #ontin&o&s press&re on the for+ of their #&lt&ral prod&#ts. heir oBn ranks Bo&ld be frag+ented by #o+petition for infl&en#e that only so+e of the+ #o&ld attain. =ost i+portantly, the e#ono+i# #risis of the 19;5s and 1985s Bo&ld bring the r#introd&#tion of li+ited +arket for#es. hese #onsisted of laBs that +andated @self%finan#ing@ 0a&to%finantare2, Bhi#h +eant that #&lt&ral enterprises/ +agaIines, resear#h instit&tes, +&se&+s, p&blishers, art galleries, and so forth/Bere noB e4pe#ted at least partly to s&stain the+selves. Altho&gh ind&strial prod&#tion #ontin&ed to be prote#ted by @soft b&dget #onstraints,@ then, #&lt&re &nderBent a partial r##o++odifi#ation that s&bNe#ted its pro% d&#ers 0albeit diff#r#ntially2 to neB e#ono+i# press&res, in addition to the older politi#al ones.

REGIME RELATIONS WITH INTELLECTUALS

Fiven the Party-s resort to sy+boli# +odes of #ontrol/ given, that is, a Party that by 19;1 had #learly anno&n#ed its need to be s&pported by #&lt&re in one or another for+ rather than by standards of living/Bhat relations arose betBeen the top elite and the #reators of #&lt&reK he proble+ of these relations Bas, of #o&rse, as old as the regi+e. SoBitt des#ribes it as part of the pro#ess of @breaking thro&gh@/ @the de#isive alteration or destr&#tion of val&es, str&#t&res, and behaviors Bhi#h are per#eived by a neB elite as #o+pro+ising or #ontrib&ting to the a#t&al or potential e4isten#e of alternative #enters ot poBer@ 019;1, ;2. 1hafir n&an#es this by speaking ofl%)E elites

altered the prerevol&tionary hege+ony, not pri+arily by attending to the val&es ot !o+ania-s +asses b&t by transfor+ing those Bho prod&#e the instr&% +ents of +ass reso#ialiIation, Briters, No&rnalists, and so forth 01hafir 1987Y, 79$%79:2. He des#ribes the early phases of Fheorghi&%'#N-s =os#oB%oriented regi+e as the @pri+itive a##&+&lation of legiti+a#y@ 0se# =eyer 19:9, 1962, +eaning the effort to destroy the bases of hege+ony potential #o&nterelit#s #o&ld draB &pon, and lie in<&ires hoB !o+anian intelle#t&als Bere then bro&ght into the syste+ of val&es #ha+pioned by the Party leadership. 1UPP!E113D* A*' !EA11E! 3D* D" *A 3D*AL (ALUE1 159 3 e+ploy a si+ilar #on#ept&aliIation in this se#tion, &sing slightly different ter+s. Eith 1hafir, 3 se# the proble+ of altering prerevol&tionary hege+onies as one that engages different fra#tions of the so#ietal elite, first, and the +asses only se#ondarily. Eithin the politi#al and intelle#t&al elite, a #onfli#t e+erges over sy+boli# val&es, Bhat sy+bols are to be preferred, Bhat a##&+&lations of sy+boli# +eanings ar# to be #reated, to Bhat e4tent #an they draB &pon earlier a##&+&lations of +eaning, and in Bhat #onditions Bill sy+boli# val&es be prod&#ed. he #onfli#t therefore #on#erns the prod&#tion of sy+boli# and #&lt&ral val&es, their eval&ation 0a Nob &s&ally done by #riti#s and historians of #&lt&re2, and their appropriation or even e4propriation. 3f #&lt&re is seen as prod&#ed/like any h&+an #reation/Bithin #ertain instit&tional re% lations and Bith #ertain +aterial +eans, then hoB does a neB politi#al regi+e +anip&late these so as to infl&en#e the kind of #&lt&re that is prod&#ed and to lay hands on sy+boli# val&es that Bill pro+ote itK HoB #an a regi+e prote#t the instit&tional and b&rea&#rati# str&#t&res it #reates for #&lt&re fro+ being altered or s&bverted bv persons Bho #ling to an older definition of thingsK HoB does it open neB sites for the prod&#tion of sy+boli# dis#o&rses favorable to itself and #lose off old sites that +ight &nder+ine itK he dile++a for those in poBer is to per+it s&ffi#ient #ontin&ity Bith the pree4isting hege+ony so as to +aintain so#ially effe#tive #&lt&ral prod&#tion, Bitho&t per+itting the #ontin&ities to overBhel+ the neB politi#al proNe#t. he #hallenge for prod&#ers of #&lt&re, in t&rn, is to &se their +astery of the sy+boli# repertoire and their #&lt&ral a&thority #ither to enter +ore f&lly into the halls of poBer or to b&ild their oBn parallel e+pires. An espe#ially a#&te proble+ for all parti#ipants #enters aro&nd hoB #&lt&ral a&thority is to be defined, Bhat #onstit&tes a +onopoly of sy+boli# reso&r#es, and Bhat #o&nts as sy+boli# reso&r#es. his entails Xf&ggl#s to define Bhat neB #&lt&ral prod&#ts Bill be re#ogniIed as having @<&ality@/that is, str&ggles to set standards of taste and of #o+peten#e. 3t also in#l&des a related str&ggle to define BXhat prior #&lt&ral prod&#ts ar# to be a##epted into a neBly for+ing #anon, or perhaps better said, Bhat parts of prior #&lt&ral prod&#ts Bill be a##epted, Bhat earlier Briters and thinkers, and Bhi#h of their Borks, Bill for+ the a&thoriIed sy+boli# repertoire of !o+anian so#ialis+K =&#h of the #onfli#t o##&rs thro&gh a pro#ess of sy+boli# r#interpr#tation, as so+e fa#ets of prior Britings and Briters are singled o&t and blessed Bithin a given syste+ of eval&ations, Bhereas other fa#ets are s&ppressed, dis+issed as noness#ntial, or #onde+ned o&tright and the Bork reNe#ted. 115 1UPP!E113D* A*' !EA11E! 3D* D" *A 3D*AL (ALUE1 o give a <&i#k e4a+ple, literary #riti# E&gen Lovin#s#& Bas one of the first

interBar fig&res to be restored to the patri+ony of a&thors a##eptable to a leftist regi+e, oBing to his spirited opposition to interBar fas#is+ and his adheren#e to liberal%de+o#rati# prin#iples, yet in the 1985s these #o++endable ite+s in his res&+e Bere overlooked in order to revile his Bel#o+e of @alien@ Bestern standards. 0 he s&bte4t of this Bas an atta#k on his da&ghter, one of the +ost a#tive +e+bers of the e+igre #o++&nity in Paris and a pillar of !adio "ree E&rope-s #riti#is+ of the C#a&s#s#& regi+e.2 he pro#ess Bhereby the Party leadership so&ght to reshape the instr&+ents of #&lt&ral prod&#tion is +&#h longer and +ore intri#ate than #an be told here. 1pe#ifi#s of it for the literary #o++&nity #an be fo&nd in Fabanyi-s 019;$2 detailed analysis of regi+e%Briter relations to 19;9, to Bhi#h the folloBing dis#&ssion is +&#h indebtedL-@ CroBth#r 019882, Feorg#s#& 019812, Fheorghi& 0198;2, and 1hafir 01981, 1987\, 198$2 offer f&rther infor+ation. Dn the Bhole, told fro+ the Party leadership-s point of vieB, it is the story of a great disappoint+ent, as the Party #reated a #&lt&ral intelligentsia after its oBn i+% age, provided #onditions it tho&ght propitio&s for #reative Bork, and saB +any intelle#t&als reNe#t its initiatives Bith de+ands for +ore freedo+. he #onse<&en#e of this disill&sion+ent, Bhi#h #rested in 19:8, Bas a long siege &pon an already%laid infrastr&#t&re for #&lt&ral prod&#tion. "ro+ the point of vieB of at least so+e Briters and s#holars, it is the story of a str&ggle to re#on<&er a spa#e for the prod&#tion of gen&ine #&lt&ral val&es and to #reate #o&nt#rinstit&tions to prote#t these, folloBed by a desperate defense of that spa#e and those val&es fro+ the Party leadership-s relentless assa&lt. he #onfli#t of these tBo stories itself for+s part of !o+anian #&lt&ral politi#s. he Party began the neB relationship Bith #&lt&re by +oves to destroy e4isting #&lt&ral a##&+&lations and instr&+ents. he !o+anian A#ade+y Bas abolished in 1998, for e4a+ple, repla#ed by a neB one Bhose +e+bers the Party sele#tedL a laB e4pelled fro+ their posts all @bo&rgeois@ &niversity professors 0e.g., 85 per#ent of those in the B&#harest philosophy fa#&lty2. All resear#h instit&tes for history Bere +erged into a single history instit&te, their several No&rnals repla#ed Bith a neB one &nder Party #ontrol 0F#orges#& 1987, 17:, n.$2. As +entioned above, the lang&age itself, that +ost basi# instr&+ent of #&lt&ral prod&#tion, Bas retooled Bith an orthography of 1lavi# inspiration, and #ertain Bords/s&#h as @national@/Bere anathe+atiIed. =aNor Borks disappeared fro+ s#hools and libraries, and Briters and 1UPP!E113D* A*' !EA11E! 3D* D" *A 3D*AL (ALUE1 111 s#holars Bere perse#&ted not N&st for @bo&rgeois@ asso#iations b&t si+ply for de#lining a#tive #ollaboration Bith the neB r&lers. Control of ed&#ation and the nationaliIation of the press and of p&blishing ho&ses 0not to +ention all the finan#ial s&pports for #&lt&re2 p&t the +ost #r&#ial +eans of #&lt&ral prod&#tion in Party hands. Additional +oves ai+ed to #reate neB instr&+ents of #&lt&re to repla#e those destroyed. 3n 199; the Party progra+ anno&n#ed that !o+anian history Bo&ld have to be Britten all over again, for its bo&rgeois for+ Bas &ns#ientifi# and la#ked the ne#essary +aterialist &nderpinnings 0F#orges#& 1981, 112. e4tbooks Bere reBritten, and neB treatises synthesiIing histori#al and philosophi#al knoBledge Bere #o++issioned that Bo&ld e+phasiIe +aterialis+ and the neB #&lt&ral genealogies a so#ialist !o+ania sho&ld revere. A spe#ial s#hool to train Party #adres Bas fo&nded in 1998 and genero&sly endoBed. 3n

19$5 the Party opened a s#hool for Briters, having already established a Lit% erary "&nd the year before. his "&nd Bas intended to s&pport Briters in periods Bhen they had no books in press, and it Bas &sed very shreBdly as an agent ofr#so#ialiIation, Briters Bhose Borks the #ensor ref&sed +ight nonetheless draB &pon the "&nd Bhile re#onsidering their attit&de 0Fabanyi 19;$, 75%712. 3n the field of history, those feB people Bho had already been Borking Bithin a +aterialist fra+eBork Bere p&shed into the &niversities and the A#ade+y 0alongside neB historians trained overnight2. he initial period of restri#tion gave Bay to a s+all rela4ation that lasted fro+ 19$7 to 19$8. '&ring these years, in#reasing n&+bers of intelle#t&als entered both the Party and the ad+inistration of #&lt&reL +any of these persons Bere @liberals@ Bho+ it Bo&ld later prove diffi#&lt to dislodge. At the sa+e ti+e there began the sele#tive r#p&blishing of #ertain Briters fro+ before the Bar/the sele#tive appropriation of earlier sy+bols noB being redefined in so#ialist ter+s. 3t Bas do&bly sele#tive in that +any Borks Bere still banned and even those that Bere not banned Bere abridged in p&bli#ation, as they and their Briters Bere repositioned in a neB syste+ of #&lt&ral eval&ations. he rela4ation also introd&#ed an ele+ent that Bo&ld prove i+portant in later #&lt&ral politi#s. 3t Bas +arked by spee#hes at the 19$7 Party Congress, Bhi#h, Bhile they still insisted that art +&st be politi#ally relevant, also en#o&raged a fight against dog+atis+ and against +e#hani#al repetition of =ar4ist%Leninist do#trine 0Fabanyi 19;$, 97%992/the sa+e ter+s &sed by Fheorghi&%'eN in o&sting the rival @+&s#ovit#@ fa#tion for their asso#iation Bith 1talinist orthodo4ies. he #a+paign against the+ 116 1UPP!E113D* A*' !EA11E! 15* D" *A 3D*AS. (ALUE1 Bas instr&+ental in bringing into Bider parlan#e the notion of @dog+atis+@-that Bo&ld be#o+e a +aNor Beapon in #&lt&ral str&ggles thro&gho&t s&bse<&ent de#ades 0se# #hapter 92. 3n the +eaning that developed d&ring this ti+e, @dog+atis+@ +eant the i+position of alien interpretations and val&es &pon the national heritage, +otivated by a dog+ati# 1talinist vieB of Bhat so#ial transfor+ation re<&ired. 3n later years, those intelle#t&als Bho had a#hieved positions in the #&lt&ral b&rea&#ra#y early on/in#l&ding the liberals entering it in the rela4ation of the +id%19$5s/Bo&ld be a##&sed of @dog+atis+@ for having served a regi+e that had previo&sly s&ppressed national val&es. After several years of reneBed restri#tions at the t&rn of the de#ade, !o+ania-s in#reasing @independen#e@ fro+ the 1oviet Union bro&ght another loosening of the #onditions for #&lt&ral prod&#tion as ot the early 19:5s. Artists and intelle#t&als on#e again entered the Party and the #&lt&ral b&rea&#ra#y, into Bhi#h a +eas&re of de#entraliIation Bas introd&#ed. Beginning in 19:6, for e4a+ple, the Eriters- Union Bas alloBed to aBard priIes, by Bhi#h the Party leadership relin<&ished the right to set literary standards independently of the Union-s +e+bership@ 0Fabanyi 19;$, 882. he p&blishing establish+ent Bas reorganiIed and de#entraliIed, in#reasing the opport&nities for Briters to rea#h print and di+inishing the Party-s dire#t oversight of intelle#t&al prod&#tion. 3nterBar Britings for+erly #onsidered taboo Bere read+it%ted to print/so+e Borks of poet L&#ian Blaga, for instan#e. Ele#tions to the !o+anian A#ade+y be#a+e freer, so+e of the older resear#h instit&tes reopened, and earlier%s&ppressed No&rnals reappeared 0#t. Feorges#& 1981,

79%7$2. Eith Cea&ses#&-s leadership in 19:$ #a+e even greater freedo+ and liberaliIation. he #anon of a##eptable #&lt&ral a##&+&lations opened an even Bider e+bra#e ba#k into the past, and the re+aining intelle#t&als Nailed earlier as #o&nt#rrevol&tionanes Bere released 0a+ong the+ philosopher Constantin *oi#a, dis#&ssed in #hapter ;2. he see+ing liberaliIation did not keep pa#e Bith the n&+bers of intelle#t&als Bho Banted +ore infl&en#e and opport&nities, hoBeverL de+ands in#reased for still +ore #&lt&ral freedo+. his Bas parti#&larly apparent in the 19:8 Eriters- Conferen#e, Bhen yo&nger Briters so&ght to Bin top positions in the literary establish+ent and de+anded dis+antling #ensorship altogether, de#entraliIing and reorganiIing all the instit&tions of literary prod&#tion, and de+o#ratiIing a##ess to p&bli#ation 0see Fabanyi 19;$, 178%1:12. 3n fields other than literat&re, there Bere si+ilar atta#ks on older @dog+atists@ holding key posts in 1UPP!E113D* A*' !EA11E! 15* 51% *A 3D*AL (ALUE1 117 the #&lt&ral b&rea&#ra#y. hese signaled an atte+pt by a neBer gro&p of intelle#t&als to take over #&lt&ral prod&#tion and to separate it fro+ politi#s 0e4pressed, as in the interBar years, as a desire that aestheti# and #&lt&ral +atters be a&tono+o&s of so#ial #on#erns2. his position, so #learly in #onfli#t Bith the p&rposes of the Party leadership, +ade it obvio&s that the Party-s poli#y of #reating a broad ed&#ated strat&+ and trying to #oopt it Bithin the fra+eBork of Party +e+bership16 Bas not Borking as planned. Leaders Bere not prepared to enfran#hise all those Bith title to #&lt&ral distin#tion. As a res&lt, +any intelle#t&als, Bh#th#r they Noined the Party or not, readily dis#erned a pattern of privilege/ travel, ready translation of one-s Borks, key positions in instit&tes and #&lt&ral organiIations, professorships, reg&lar #ol&+ns in p&bli#ations, a##eptan#e of one-s Britings for p&bli#ation/in Bhi#h they too Banted a part. he pattern of privilege Bas nothing neB in !o+anian #&lt&reL it Bas +erely aggravated by the in#reased n&+ber of aspirants to higher stat&s. he groBing r#stiven#ss of intelle#t&als, evident espe#ially in the EritersCongress of 19:8, did not +eet Bith Party leaders- approval. Earlier in that year Cea&s#s#&, apparently realiIing that #&lt&ral prod&#tion had be#o+e too independent of Party g&idan#e, had anno&n#ed, =an be#o+es free in the so#ialist syste+ not be#a&se he is o&tside the a#tion of so#ial laBs, b&t be#a&se by &nderstanding tli#ir i+perative need, UheV a#ts in their spirit for the #ons#io&s #onstr&#tion of so#iety. herefore the freedo+ of the individ&al is not in #ontradi#tion Bith the general de+ands and interests of so#iety b&t, on the #ontrary, serves these interests. herefore, Bhen it happens that the general interests are disregarded, so#iety is entitled to take the ne#essary +eas&res so that these interests . . . sho&ld not be preN&di#ed 0C#a&s#se& 19:9: U19:8V, :612. hereafter, the Party began to pla#e intelle#t&als Linder +ore #onstraint, intensifying the str&ggle both Bithin the+ as a gro&p and betBeen the+ and the Party leadership. 3n 19;5, the aBards of literary priIes bro&ght the leadership into open #onfli#t Bith the Eriters- Union 0Fabanyi 19;$, 1;;2 and shoBed that the Party intended to re#over the privilege of +aking s&#h aBards and of setting the standards of val&e they represented. Cea&ses#&-s @S&ly theses@ in 19;1 la&n#hed an offensive against #&lt&re-s a&tono+y, #onde+ned

the liberaliIation of 19:$, reestablished an 3nde4 of prohibited books and a&thors, and r#%#+phasiI#d the ne#essary so#iopoliti#al role of intelle#t&al prod&#tion. "or the re+ainder of this de#ade and the ne4t, one +eas&re after another assailed the independent stat&s of the instit&tions of intelle#t&al 119 1UPP!E113D* A*' !EA11E! 15* D" *A 3D*AL (ALUE1 life, the Eriters- Union, the !o+anian A#ade+y, Bhole fields of endeavor s&#h as so#iology17 and psy#hology, the dispersed str&#t&re of histori#al resear#h, #ertain #&lt&ral p&bli#ations, and so on. he #enter grad&ally reestablished #ontrol over the p&blishing syste+ and i+posed r&les that #hanged the #riteria for +e+bership in ele#tive intelle#t&al bodies. he n&+bers of st&dents ad+itted into the nonte#hni#al fields in &niversities Bere #ontin&ally #&t, 19 and va#ant positions in resear#h instit&tes re+ained &nfilled. *o one #o&ld p&rs&e do#toral st&dies Bitho&t approval fro+ the lo#al Party organiIation. 3n 1986, a s#andal involving rans#endental =editation served as the prete4t for re+oving a s&bstantial n&+ber of intelle#t&als fro+ their posts. 1$ !ed&#ed press r&ns, +andated fro+ the #enter, di+inished both a&thors- earnings and the BritersLiterary "&nd, Bhi#h derived fro+ a per#entage of all sales. he neB r&les for @self%finan#ing@ in 19;8, +entioned above, Borsened the already parlo&s state of +any #&lt&ral organiIations, for +any of the+ fo&nd it e4#eedingly diffi#&lt in the environ+ent of the 1985s to #o+e &p Bith their oBn +eans of s&pport. 1: "olloBing defeats at the hands of the Eriters- Union d&ring the late 19;5s and early 1985s, the Party leadership si+ply blo#ked all f&rther +eetings of the Union after 1981. By not na+ing N&ries for literary priIes, it ended #onfli#t over their aBard. Prior to the ann&al Congress of 1o#ialist Ed&#ation of C&lt&re in 198;, the first list of proposed delegates 0#onsisting of &niversity professors, high%s#hool tea#hers, Briters, and so forth2 Bas reNe#ted by top Party offi#ials and repla#ed by a se#ond list #onsisting of Borkers and se#&rity #ops, indi#ating die leadership-s definition of #&lt&re as a +ass rather than an elite pheno+enon. 1; he sa+e point Bas +ade by Bidely instit&tionaliIing the @1ong of !o+ania@ festival syste+, a +ass pheno+enon e4alting pop&lar #&lt&re over elite for+s 0se# )lig+an =12. "inally, the Party leadership laid siege to the !o+anian A#ade+y. "irst it s&##essf&lly i+posed Elena C#a&s#s#& as A#ade+y +e+ber in 19;9/#o+pletely destroying the instit&tion-s #redibility in the eyes of the p&bli#. 1e#ond, it per+itted no +ore ele#tions of neB +e+bers after 19;;. hird, as the A#ade+y-s neB head, =rs. Cea&s#s#& e4propriated its independent f&nds 0#onsisting of donations by the +e+bers to s&pport spe#ial priIes or progra+s2 and diverted the+ into the #entral b&dget.18 his sket#h of the #hanges in the organiIation of #&lt&re and the treat+ent of intelle#t&als +akes #lear the Party-s shift, as of the early 19;5s, fro+ a politi#s of in#ipient refor+ to one of ideologi#al #ontrol, 1UPP!E113D* A*' !EA11E! 3D* D" *A 3D*AL (ALUE1 11$ in Bhi#h die intelligentsia Bo&ld be for#ed to play a +aNor role and in telle#t&al life Bo&ld be organiIed to #o+pel the+ to do so. he leadership envisioned propagating a variety of ideologi#al nor+s/an ethi# of hard Bork, prin#iples of @so#ialist e<&ity and ethi#s,@ notions of progress, and so forth. he role of h&+anist intelle#t&als Bo&ld be to disse+inate s&#h notions thro&gh their

novels, resear#h, and philosophi#al spe#&lation. "or those Bho fo&nd this distastef&l, s&itable aven&es for professional f&lfill+ent Bo&ld begin to disappear. Party offi#ials Bho reasoned in this Bay +ay have been s&rprised at the resistan#e their plans en#o&ntered. he Eriters- Union proved e4#eedingly diffi#&lt to break apart. An intended re&nifi#ation and re%#entraliIation of resear#h in die field of history ran agro&nd, reportedly, on the opposition of poBerf&l heads of history instit&tes Bho did not Bant to lose their posts. 19 3n so+e #ases, the rela4ations of the 19$5s and 19:5s had pla#ed poBerf&l persons in high positions/s&#h as the editorships of #ertain +agaIines/Bhere they +aintained standards other than those intended by the Party leadershipL getting rid of the+ Bas not alBays easy. =ore interesting, #ertain persons installed as apparat#hiks #a&ght the b&g for @tr&e@ #&lt&re and #a+e to the defense of a&thors and val&es one +ight not have e4pe#ted the+ to &phold. 65 1o+e of these persons Bere in #harge of poBerf&l seg+ents of the b&% rea&#ra#y and had a+assed large reserves of reso&r#es in the proNe#ts &nder their #harge, +aking the+ veritable fortresses. 6- Dther persons had +anaged to #reate p&bli#ation #hannels that #ir#&+vented the nor+al path and bro&ght o&t Borks that Bo&ld otherBise have been stalled inter+inably in the politi#al #enter.66 Ehile the !o+anian A#ade+y Bas, in 1989, literally dying on its feet, the A#ade+y of 1o#ial and Politi#al 1#ien#es, fo&nded in 19;5 to oppose it and sta#ked Bith persons Bho Bere a##eptable by the standards of that ti+e, Bas be#o+ing a potential lo#&s of resistan#e to the #o+plete takeover of #&lt&re by the Party leadership.67 Dne res&lt of the Party-s assa&lts &pon the independen#e of #&lt&ral prod&#tion Bas to divide the #&lt&ral field into Barring #a+ps. 69 he feB positions of infl&en#e Bere noB to be savagely #o+peted forL so also Bas the poBer to define basi# #&lt&ral val&es, for s&#h definitions Bo&ld deter+ine the o&t#o+e of other #ontests. 3f eno&gh Briters Bere to insist that aestheti# and stylisti# val&es sho&ld be N&dged a&tono+o&sly of a Bork-s so#ial +essage/despite Cea&ses#&-s disagr##%+ent/then the positions of so+e literary #riti#s Bo&ld re+ain se#&re, Bhereas if these val&es Bere to fade, so Bo&ld the voi#es of their #ha+%

11: 1UPP!E113D* A*' !EA11E! 3D* D" *A 3D*AL (ALUE1 pi&ns. 3f philosophy Bere to be defined as pop&lar Bisdo+ 0as so+e Bo&ld have it2 rather than as =ar4is+%1.eninis+ or as the a##&+&lated tradition of Bestern philosophi#al tho&ght, then #ertain people Bo&ld be#o+e professors and resear#hers in philosophy instit&tes and others Bo&ld not. 3f so#iology as a separate field Bere to vanish, its a+bitio&s pra#titioners/noB ineligible for depart+ent #hairs/Bo&ld strive to i+pose neB definitions of the so#iologi#al endeavor that Bo&ld afford the+ the best vantage point for +ane&ver and infl&en#e. he possible positions in this politi#iIed #&lt&ral field differed for ea#h do+ain of spe#ialiIation. Certain dis#iplines Bere +ore #entral than others to the leadership-s intentions. "or e4a+ple, history Bas #r&#ial be#a&se of its treat+ent of the national past in Bhi#h <&estions of origin and identity Bere e+beddedL this ##ntrality pla#ed potentially +ore reso&r#es at history-s disposal 0even if a##o+panied by +ore s&rveillan#e2 along Bith a Bider range of positions in this field than in nearly def&n#t psy#hology, for instan#e. =eanBhile, philosophy, on#e the #entral pillar of legiti+ation for a =ar4ist% Leninist regi+e, drifted #o+fortably into the shade. Literat&re Bas also privileged, oBing to the%#entral role of #riti#s and Briters in for+&lating and disse+inating val&es to the p&bli# at large, b&t literary prod&#tion Bas +ore deeply affe#ted than history by self%finan#ing. Eriters- v&lnerability not only to Party #ontrol b&t also to +arket for#es +ay have #ontrib&ted to their for+ing a +ore vo#al opposition in the late 1985s than did historians. Eithin ea#h of these fields, the spe#ifi# iss&es dividing it into #o+peting gro&ps differed. Cet as the 19;5s gave Bay to the 1985s, in ea#h do+ain of #&lt&ral a#tivity at least one gro&p e+erged that defended its position and its #lai+s thro&gh a #ertain definition of national identity and a defense of the *ation. he ne4t se#tion shoBs hoB this neB ele+ent entered the #onstit&tion of #&lt&ral politi#s.

T./ (/+SS/(T#ON O0 N+T#ON+1 #$/O1O*2 #N (OM+N#+N C31T3(/ +N$ )O1#T#CS

he !o+anian party-s 19:9 @de#laration@ +arked !o+ania-s p&bli# deviation fro+ 1oviet plans and affir+ation of its rights as a sovereign state. A year later, at the *inth Congress of the !o+anian Co++&nist Party, Ciheorghi&% '#N-s s&##essor f&rthered this sa+e pro#ess. *ot only did C#a&ses#& signal a restoration of old val&es by res&rre#ting the latinate spelling of the #o&ntry-s na+e 0!o+ania2, and not only did he assert !o+ania-s e<&ality Bith the 1oviet Union by r#% 1Ul-P!E113D* A*' !EA11E! 3D* D" *A 3D*AL (ALUE1 11; na+ing the !o+anian Eorkers- Party the !o+anian Co++&nist Party and the People-s !ep&bli# of !o+ania the !o+anian 1o#ialist !ep&bli#, he also affir+ed the #ontin&ing e4isten#e of nations &nder so#ialis+. he #r&#ial passage, the likes of Bhi#h had not been heard in a p&bli# for&+ in !o+ania for nearly tBo de#ades, ran as folloBs, "or a long ti+e to #o+e, die nation and the 1tate Bill #ontin&e to be the basis of the develop+ent of so#ialist so#iety. he develop+ent of the nation, the

#onsolidation of the so#ialist 1tate #o+ply Bith the obNe#tive re<&ire+ents of so#ial lifeL not only do#s this not r&n #o&nter to the interests of so#ialist inter% nationalis+, b&t, on the #ontrary, it f&lly #orresponds to these interests, to the international solidarity of the Borking people, to the #a&se of so#ialis+ and pea#e. he develop+ent and flo&rishing of ea#h so#ialist nation, of ea#h so% #ialist state, e<&al in rights, sovereign and independent, is an essential re<&ire+ent &pon Bhi#h depend the strengthening of die &nity and #ohesion of die so#ialist #o&ntries, die groBth of their infl&en#e &pon +ankind-s advan#e toBard so#ialis+ and #o++&nis+ 0C#a&ses#& 19:9\ 119:$S, :52. 3n this and s&bse<&ent spee#hes C#a&ses#& na+ed and <&oted fa+o&s !o+anians fro+ the national past, people Bho had not been invoked in offi#ial settings for years, t&rn%of%the%#ent&ry historian Genopol, for e4a+ple, #ited pointedly for his arg&+ents in s&pport of ind&strialiIation and against an agrarian !o+ania 0ibid., 672. 3n addition, he +ade an e4pli#it appeal for +aterialist resear#h into the @real history@ of !o+anians 0p. 8$2, reiterating this appeal in a later spee#h that #larified the relation a+ong history, the Party, and the *ation, Ee, Co++&nists, #onsider it is a #reditable +ission to st&dy, knoB and honor d&ryf&lly Usi#V all diose Bho #ontrib&ted to b&ilding &p o&r nation, all those Bho laid doBn their lives for the !o+anian people-s national and so#ial freedo+. Ee, Co++&nists, are die #ontin&ers of Bhatever is best in the !o+anian people. he Co++&nist Party did not appear in !o+ania in an a##idental Bay. 3t is the res&lt of a Bhole histori#al pro#ess of e#ono+i# and so#ial devel% op+ent, Bhi#h led to the ripening of the Borking #lass, of the revol&tionary str&ggle and to the for+ation of the !o+anian Co++&nist Party. HoB Bo&ld it be possible for a Party Bhi#h proposes to lead the people along die road of b&ilding a fairer syste+, the so#ialist syste+, not to knoB the past str&gglesK . . . HoB #o&ld a people feel Bitho&t knoBing its past, its history, Bitho&t honoring and appre#iating that historyK Eo&ldn-t it be like a #hild Bho does not knoB his parents and feels alien in the BorldK Co+rades, it Bo&ld &ndo&btedly be so 0C#a&ses#& 19:9\ 119::V, 97$2. '&ring the se#ond year of his r&le, +ention of past !o+anians be#a+e ro&tine, in#l&ding not N&st those Bho+ a tradition of @de+o#rati#@ str&ggle +ight Billingly re#ogniIe b&t a +&#h Bider range fro+ the

118 1UPP!E113D* A*' !EA11E! 3D* 5( *A 3D*AL (ALUE1 pantheon of an#estral heroes. 1&#h referen#es Bere absent only fro+ spee#hes honoring international o##asions 0s&#h as the fiftieth anniversary of the Bolshevik !evol&tion2. o bring the *ation so boldly into the rhetori# of the !o+anian party re<&ired not only a #onfident assess+ent of the 1oviet response b&t also a skillf&l r#Borking of the past of the !o+anian party itself. 3f the Party Bas noB identified Bith national interests and if one Bere to tr&st its g&idan#e, hoB Bas one to a##o&nt for its having endorsed in the 1965s and 1975s the Co+int#rn line that #o&ntenan#ed !o+ania-s dis+e+ber+entK C#a&ses#& addressed this ti#klish proble+ in a 19:: spee#h #elebrating the forty%fifth anniversary of the Party-s fo&nding. 3n it he #ens&red the Co+intern-s earlier hostility to the interests of !o+ania, its st&bborn blindness to !o+anian realities, and the fail&re of early !o+anian #o++&nists to +ake their oBn analysis of the #o&ntry-s history and develop+ent. He also pointedly observed that the !o+a% nian party had been divided betBeen those Bho a##epted the Co+intern-s hostile line and those Bho #ontin&ed to strive for the *ation-s interests. he latter gro&p finally prevailed, reaffir+ing the Party-s role as a Borthy g&arantor of !o+ania-s f&t&re. C#a&ses#& repeated his vieB that only &nder so#ialis+ #an the *ation #o+e to f&ll floBer, stating that &nlike #apitalist nations, the *ation &nder so#ialis+ #onstit&tes a progressive for#e, and averring that @the nation Bill #ontin&e to be for a long ti+e to #o+e the basis for the develop+ent of o&r so#iety ...@ 0C#a&ses#& 19:9\ W19::2, 7;92. Eith these spee#hes, Cea&s#s#& introd&#ed +aNor +odifi#ations into =ar4ist% Leninist theoriIing abo&t the *ation &nder so#ialis+ and the%possible pla#e of national val&es Bithin !o+anian so#ialist so#iety. "ar fro+ Bithering aBay, the *ation/along Bith the 1tate/Bo&ld for+ a positive #le+ent in b&ilding so#ialis+. =oreover, Cea&s#s#& a##orded the so#ialist *ation, rather than the Borking #lass, the #entral role in f&rthering Borld progress 01#hopflin 19;9, 972. His arg&+ents also paved the Bay for identifying the !o+anian Co++&nist Party not N&st Bith the proletariat b&t Bith the entire *ation. his vieB s&bse<&ently be#a+e +ore and +ore e4pli#it in C#a&s#s#&-s spee#hes 0and also in the organiIation of the dis#ipline of history/se# #hapter :2, as evident in the folloBing, Ee +&st have a &nitary history ... in UBhi#hV die history of the !o+anian people Bill also en#o+pass the history ot the revol&tionary Borkers+ove+ent, of the 1o#ial%'e+o#rati# Eorkers- Party, as Bell as of the !o+anian Co++&nist Parry. here #annot be tBo histories, a history of die people and a history 1UPP!E113D* A*' !EA11E! 3D* D" *A 3D*AL (ALUE1 119 of the Party. D&r people has a single history, and the a#tivity ot the !o+anian Co++&nist Party, along Bith other parties in different periods, #onstinites an inseparable part of the history of the ho+eland 0Cea&ses#& 1987: U1986V, :;2. Eith these a+end+ents to thinking abo&t the *ation, the road Bas opened for reinserting the national past into the so#ialist present, for redefining the *ation in ter+s #ongr&ent Bith the tenets of =ar4is+%Leninis+. he leader-s initiatives Bere pi#ked &p at on#e in p&bli#ations of all sorts, so+e persons Borking on the theoreti#al analysis of the *ation in so#ialis+ 0e.g.,

Favrila 19:8L Col##ri&%Leis 19:82 and others t&rning/ret&rning/to the proble+ of the !o+anian national essen#e. 3n the sa+e year as C#a&s#s#&-s spee#h to the *inth Congress there appeared an essay by philosopher and long%ti+e #o++&nist Atanase SoNa, entitled @ he 1pirit&al Profile of the !o+anian People.@ his arti#le established a broad set of #oordinates Bithin Bhi#h +any s&bse<&ent Britings on the topi# Bere to lo#ate the+selves. A+ong the +ost i+portant Bas an e4pli#it reNe#tion of the irrationality and +ysti#is+ that so+e in the interBar right had posited as f&nda+ental to !o+anian #hara#ter. 3nsisting that all the greatest !o+anians Bere rationalists rather than +ysti#s, SoNa pointedly observed that +ysti#is+ had entered !o+anian philosophy only Bith the interBar fas#ists and sho&ld be seen as an i+ported, not a native, pheno+enon 0SoNa 19:$, 92. Basi# to !o+anian #hara#ter, he held, are reason and logosX the predo+inan#e of Latin #larity over 'a#ian e+otionality, @3 #onsider #hara#teristi# of the !o+anian psy#hology the apolloniIation of the dionisia# s&bstrate, the dis#iplining and infle#ting of violent pathos to the e4igen#ies of for+ and +eas&re. . . . !o+anian #&lt&re is ofapollonian type@ 0ibid., 82. hese e+phases on rationality and Latinity6$ Bere, of #o&rse, essential to a Party that prided itself on its oBn rationalist origins and Bas at the ti+e +oving aBay fro+ its 1oviet overlords. Predi#tably, SoNa gave the national essen#e a +aterialist treat+ent, #lai+ing that it is not inborn, fi4ed for all ti+e, b&t #hanges &nder the infl&en#e of varying histori#al #onditions, @Peoples do not p&rely and si+ply inherit their +oral physiogno+y, b&t they the+selves forge it in the #o&rse of their history@ 0ibid., :2. SoNa-s essay Bas also interesting for its re#&peration of so+e earlier giants of !o+anian #&lt&re Bho had been a##&sed of +ysti#is+ b&t Bho+ he saB as e4hibiting a spirit that Bas essentially @apollonian.@ Eithin these stri#t&res/the rationality of the national essen#e, its 'a#o%Latinity, and its so#ial and histori#al #onditioning/ SoNa-s list of !o+anians- essential traits Bas broad eno&gh to sti+&% 165 1UPP!E113D* A*' !EA11E! 15* D" *A 3D*AL (ALUE1 late r##onsid#ration of the essen#e fro+ +any different angles and dis#iplines. he re#onsid#rations s#ar#ely aBaited this sti+&l&s. 3n the years that folloBed C#a&s#s#&-s spee#h on the *ation and SoNa-s reopening of dis#&ssions on the national essen#e, !o+anian No&rnals and books Bere on#e again filled Bith these tBo s&bNe#ts.6: As early as 19;1, one a&thor #o&ld Brite, 3n &nderstanding and defining die #on#ept of nation and its #hara#teristi# traits, the proble+ that is perhaps the +ost disp&ted and that aro&ses +any debates and efforts at #larifi#ation in the philosophi#al, so#iologi#al, histori#al, and ethnographi# literat&re #on#erns the spirit&al physiogno+y of the nation 0!#%b#d#& 19;1, 6;72. =&#h of the i+pet&s Bas theoreti#al refine+ent of the =ar4ist tea#hings that had so a+ply established the *ation-s so#io##ono+i# base. 1o+e Briters fo#&sed their attention on the national essen#e as a spirit&al pheno+enon. Dthers proposed that the idea of an integral national essen#e #o&ld a#t&ally +ake sense only in so#ialis+, for in #apitalis+ the so#ial psy#hology of nations is divided by #lasses, Bhereas in so#ialis+ the national #&lt&re be#o+es f&lly integrated and #an at last #onstit&te a progressive for#e 0ibid., 699, 69;2. 1till others t&rned e4pressly to the interBar debates, in<&iring Bhi#h of those earlier #ontrib&tions 0the @progressive and de+o#rati#@ ones2 #o&ld be bro&ght

into a so#ialist vieB of the <&estion and Bhi#h 0the @retrograde, #ha&vinisti#, +ysti#al, rea#tionary@ ones of the fas#ists2 +&st be rooted o&t 0ibid., 6;;, 751 /7572. Literary #riti#s i++ediately res&s#itated the old #U&estion of the national essen#e in relation to art 0=arino 19::L 1i+ion 19::2. A##o+panying the r#introd&#tion of national val&es as an a##eptable ite+ of p&bli# dis#o&rse Bas the strengthening of a tenden#y already evident as early as the 19$5s, Bith Fh#orghi&%'eN-s p&rging of the @+&s#ovit#@ fa#tion fro+ the top Party leadership, a tenden#y to label one-s opponents in a disp&te @dog+atists.@ "ro+ the o&tset this label had a do&ble +eaning. 3t +eant on the one hand those Bho s&bs#ribe 0or are a##&sed of s&bs#ribing2 to @v&lgar@ =ar4ist%Leninist or 1talinist notions, s&#h as proletarian internationalis+ or so#ialist realis+ in art, and on the other hand those Bho appear Billing to sa#rifi#e the val&es of the *ation, s&bordinating it to an o&tside poBer. Ehereas that o&tside poBer Bas initially the 1oviet Union, by the late 1985s people Bere being a##&sed of dog+atis+ for advo#ating Bestern val&es, for these too denied the Borth of !o+ania-s oBn #&lt&ral #ontrib&tion and therefore stood in the lineage of @dog+atis+.@ 1UPP!E113D* A*' !EA11E! 15* DE *A 3D*AL (ALUE1 161 he history of hoB @dog+atis+@ Bas #onstr&#ted and Bielded as an instr&+ent of politi#al str&ggle Bo&ld +ake an intrig&ing so#iologi#al st&dy, Bhi#h 3 #annot offer here. 3 #all attention to @dog+atis+@ in order to &nders#ore the #le+ent of its history that is real, so that its s&bse<&ent so#ial elaboration 0se# #hapter 92 #an be &nderstood as s&#h. he ele+ent that is real is that for over a de#ade the dis#o&rse on !o+anian identity and all the pra#ti#es asso#iated Bith it had been driven &ndergro&nd in the na+e of a rigid interpretation of =ar4is+, an interpretation asso#iated Bith 1oviet do+inan#e as Bell as Bith !o+ania-s #ontin&ed territorial v&lnerability 0oBing to its large H&ngarian pop&lation2. Fiven the national passions so visible in Britings fro+ before the Bar, this e4perien#e Bas an e4#eedingly painf&l one for +any !o+anians, Bho felt the+selves obligated to serve the interests of a poBer other than the one to Bhi#h they felt allegian#e. Against this ba#kgro&nd, the Party-s s&##ess in reorienting the politi#s of the #o&ntry and the lang&age of =ar4is+ d&ring the 19:5s, so that these Bere noB seen as serving !o+anian rather than 1oviet interests, +&st be vieBed as a +aNor a##o+plish+ent, 6; Bhi#h s&##eeded for a ti+e in prod&#ing fair s&pport for Party r&le.

!h& Nationa" #deo"og&4

Having signaled the post%19:$ flood of Britings on the *ation and its essen#e/ a portion of Bhi#h Bill be analyIed in s&bse<&ent #hapters/3 Bish to take &p one final <&estion #on#erning the politi#s of the C#a&ses#& era. Ehy #lid a =ar4ist%Leninist regi+e e+ploying a sy+boli#%ideologi#al +ode of #ontrol give so +&#h Beight to an ideology that Bas national. his <&estion has been handled at greater or lesser length by a n&+ber of politi#al s#ientists, +ost of Bho+ see the ansBer in the regi+e-s need for p&bli# s&pport, either in general or in its <&arrel Bith the 1oviet Union. *ationalis+, if is arg&ed, Bas the C#a&ses#& leadership-s +ain instr&+ent for legiti+ating its r&le Bith the pop&la#e and for keeping the intelle#t&als #oopted or s&bservient 0se#, e.g., Croan 1989, 185L CroBther 1988, ;9, 175L Filberg 1995, 16%17, 698L SoBitt 19;1, 6;$%6;9L )ing 1985, 16$L

1#hopflin 19;9, 97, 151L is+an#an& 1989, 775%7712. 3 do not adopt this line of arg&+ent. 3 see the national ideology that be#a+e a hall+ark of C#a&s#s#&-s !o+ania as having several so&r#es, 166 1UPP!E113D* A*' !EA11E! 3D* D" *A 3D*AL (ALUE1 only one of Bhi#h Bas its p&rposef&l instr&+entaliIation by the Party. o a #onsiderable e4tent, 3 arg&e, the Party Bas for#ed onto the terrain of national val&es 0not &nBillingly2 &nder press&re fro+ others, espe#ially intelle#t&als, Bho+ it #o&ld f&lly engage in no other +anner. hese intelle#t&als Bere draBing &pon personal #on#erns and traditions of in<&iry that +ade the *ation a #ontin&ing and &rgent reality for the+ despite its offi#ial interdi#tion. hey Bere also engaged in #onfli#ts a+ong the+selves for Bhi#h, as before, the *ation provided a basi# idio+. o &se a different phrasing, !o+anian intelle#t&als Bere &tiliIing so+ething/the *ation/that Be +ight #all a +aster sy+bolX one having the #apa#ity to do+inate the field of sy+bols and dis#o&rses in Bhi#h it Bas e+ployed, pressing the +eanings of other ter+s and sy+bols in its oBn dire#tion. 3n addition, 3 see the national ideology as having an ele#tive affinity, beyond any leadership-s #ons#io&s +anip&lation, Bith #ertain inherent #hara#teristi#s of !o+anian so#ialis+. Altho&gh 3 do not reNe#t arg&+ents s&#h as SoBitt-s, for instan#e, that Cea&s#s#& realiIed the ne#essity of f&sing nationalis+ and so#ialis+ 019;1, 6;92, 3 think the story is +&#h +ore #o+pli#ated than that. he +ost obvio&s so&r#e of the restored national val&es Bas, of #o&rse, the <&iet revolt of the high Party elite fro+ 1oviet s&pervision, as they insisted &pon #ontrolling !o+anian so#iety and not being di#tated to by so+eone else. All so#ial life, says =ikhail Bakhtin 0Bho, as one of 1talin-s vi#ti+s, sho&ld knoB2, is an ongoing str&ggle betBeen the atte+pt of poBer to i+pose a &nifor+ lang&age and the atte+pt of those beloB to speak in their oBn diale#ts 0@h#t#roglossia@2 0Bakhtin 19812. 1oviet r&le entailed the Bholesale i+position of a lang&age, =ar4is+%Leninis+, that Bas native to al+ost none in !o+ania and #ongenial to feB. "ro+ fa#tional str&ggles and p&rges an ethni# !o+anian leadership had e+erged that, despite its gen&ine adheren#e to =ar4ist ideas, Bas also heir to tBo #ent&ries of politi#s #o&#hed in a lang&age of national identity/the diale#t, as it Bere, nat&ral to !o+anian politi#al life. !o+anians Bere not the only ones to reply to 1oviet do+ination in a national diale#t, it Bas evident in H&ngary in 19$:, in Poland then and even +ore so in 19:8. B&t !o+anian leaders replied to 1oviet r&le in that lang&age +ore often than others, #&l+inating in C#a&ses#&-s fa+o&s spee#h on the 1oviet invasion of CIe#hoslovakia, he penetration of the troops of the five so#ialist #o&ntries into CIe#hoslovakia #onstit&tes a great +istake and a grave danger to pea#e in E&rope, and to the fate of so#ialis+ in the Borld. 3t is in#on#eivable in today-s Borld, Bhen peoples 1UPP!E113D* A*' !EA11E! 15* D" *A 3D*AL (ALUE1 167 are rising &p in str&ggle to defend their national independen#e and their right to e<&ality, that . . . so#ialist states sho&ld transgress the liberty and indepen% den#e of another state. . he proble+ of #hoosing the roads of so#ialist #onstr&#tion is a proble+ for ea#h individ&al Party, ea#h 1tate, ea#h people. *o one #an pose as an adviser, as a g&ide to the Bay in Bhi#h so#ialis+ is to be b&ilt in another #o&ntry. . . .

A+ong die +eas&res that the W !o+anianV Central Co++ittee, the Co&n#il of =inisters and the 1tate Co&n#il have de#ided to take are ... the for+ation of ar+ed patrioti# deta#h+ents of Borkers, peasants, and intelle#t&als, defenders of the independen#e of o&r so#ialist ho+eland. Ee Bant o&r people to have its ar+ed &nits in order to defend its revol&tionary gains. . . . he entire !o+anian people Bill not per+it anyone to violate the territory of o&r ho+eland. . . . Be s&re, #o+rades, be s&re, #itiIens of !o+ania, . . . that Be U#o++&nist leadersV shall never betray o&r ho+eland, Be shall never betray die interests of o&r people 0Cea&ses#& 19:9# U19:8W2, 91$%91;, +y translation2. 3t is tr&e that after this spee#h tho&sands ot !o+anians flo#ked to Noin the Party Bho Bo&ld never have #on#eived of s&#h a thing the day before. At least one of C#a&ses#&-s +otives, 3 nonetheless believe, Bas not this b&t a !o+anian national reply to 1oviet do+ination, a reply born of both interest and senti+ent. he for#es &nderlying its national for+, hoBever, in#l&ded both in%stit&tionally e+bedded traditions and the a#tive press&re of national senti+ent fro+ beloB. 1o+ething like this infor+s H&gh 1#ton%Eatson-s observation that be#a&se both the !o+anian and the Polish #o++&nist leaders of the 19$5s enNoyed so little pop&lar s&pport relative to other East E&ropean Party leaderships, they Bere on the one%hand +ore dependent on the 1oviet Union for their position, b&t, on the other, +ore v&lnerable to &pBard seepage of the &niversal anti% !&ssian senti+ents of their oBn +asses. he presen#e of a @solid layer of +iddle%level, devoted, indo#trinated #adres@ Bo&ld have i+peded this seepage, b&t s&#h a layer did not e4ist. 3n #onse<&en#e, both of these Party leaderships ended by identifying +ore Bith the national senti+ents of their pop&lations than Bith their 1oviet patrons 01eton%Eatson 19:9, 1:82. 1eton%Eatson-s insight is parti#&larly apt for the relation betBeen Party leaders and the ed&#ated strat&+, Bith its privileged opport&nity 0#o+pared Bith the @+asses@2 to spread #on#epts and ideas. he &niversity st&dents, the #adr#s% in%training, or the yo&ths Bho headed for the neB Eriters- 1#hool, Bere people deeply so#ialiIed into patrioti# atta#h+ent. =any of the+ Bere fresh fro+ a ransylvania re#ently dis% 169 1UPP!E113D* A*' !EA11E! 3U* D" *A 3D*AL (ALUE1 +e+b#r#d, its northern part ret&rned to H&ngary in 1995 and reNoined to !o+ania in 1999 after +&#h s&fferingL others Bere fro+ a =oldavia Bhose B#ssarabian portion the 1oviet Union had N&st a+p&tated. he national senti+ents of s&#h people Bere freshly aro&sed, and they entered an intelle#t&al and politi#al environ+ent fro+ Bhi#h it had been i+possible to e4tirpate all re+nants of the @bo&rgeois nationalist@ pra#ti#es #hapter 1 has des#ribed. hese people did not share the vantage%point of the top politi#al #ir#les, Bho perhaps believed 0as so+e arg&e2 that only by silen#ing national dis#o&rse, th&s #onvin#ing 1talin that his for+er opponents on the battlefield Bere noB his sta&n#h#st allies, #o&ld !o+ania be s&re of retaining ransylvania Bith its large !o+anian pop&lation and its #r&#ial ind&strial reso&r#es. 68 "or persons less #entral to poBer, hoBever, at least as they tell it in retrospe#t, an inN&n#tion to silen#e on the national val&es #o&ld s#ar#ely be borne. 1#holars spoke in the 1985s of the s&pre+e effort Bith Bhi#h they so&ght to take advantage, in the 19$5s and early 19:5s, of any opening to bring a

@national@ te4t into the e+ergent so#ialist #&lt&ral #anon/the Britings of patriot%historian Parvan, for e4a+ple, offi#ially #astigated as a fas#ist yet rep&blish#d in a s+all and tr&n#ated edition as early as 19$;. An e4%e+ployee of a +aNor p&blishing ho&se des#ribed to +e, perhaps Bith so+e politi#iIation after the fa#t, hoB the very Beight of the interdi#tions on Bhat #o&ld be p&blished inspired hi+ and his #olleag&es to strategi# the printing of @so+e !o+anian #&lt&re,@ e+boldened by the ta#it s&pport of their Bell%pla#ed s&perior. A #leverly sele#ted poe+ of the interdi#ted national poet E+ines#&, inserted into s#hool +an&alsL a novel by a parti#&lar Briter folloBing a staged pre%e+ptive atta#k that nonetheless +entioned the @de+o#rati#@ so#ial +es% sage of his books ... By s&#h +eans, the intelle#t&al #oar#hit##ts of !o+ania-s independent line Bere Borking desperately to e4pand the possibilities for their oBn generation-s #reative o&tp&t, as Bell as satisfying anti%1oviet feelings and enlivening the grey lands#ape of so#ialist realis+. 3t is this sort of a#tivity, this sort of press&re fro+ beloB, that +akes +e agree Bith SoBitt Bhen he says, @3deologi#ally, there has been a #ontin&o&s and #ons#io&s atte+pt to in#orporate, re#ogniIe and #ontrol the idea of the nation@ 019;1, 6;72. @dControl@ is pre#isely the Bord. Altho&gh Cea&ses#& +ay have bro&ght the national dis#o&rse ba#k into p&bli# &sage, he ass&redly did not do so fro+ a position of do+inan#e over its +eanings. !ather, he presided over the +o+ent Bhen the =ar4ist dis#o&rse Bas de#isively disr&pted by that of the *ation. "ro+ 1UPP!E113D* A*' !EA11E! 3D* 5( *A 3D*AL (ALUE1 16$ then on, the Party str&ggled to +aintain the initiative in the &se of this rhetori#. 3f national ideology str&#k o&tside observers as the +ost salient feat&re of !o+anian politi#s, this Bas not be#a&se the Party e+phasiIed nothing else b&t be#a&se the *ation Bas so Bell entren#hed dis#&rsively in !o+anian life. 3t Bas the one s&bNe#t that Bas g&aranteed to get !o+anians-1 attention, be#a&se so +any of the+ Bere &sing it the+selves. hese &nderlying so&r#es of prevalent nationalis+ Bere a&g+ented by others d&ring the 19;5s and 1985s, Bhen, as des#ribed in the se#tion above, the leadership-s assa&lt on #&lt&ral instit&tions politi#iIed the entire field of #&lt&ral prod&#tion. As the Party-s atte+pt to +onopoliIe #&lt&re sharpened #onfli#t a+ong the prod&#ers of sy+bols and i+ages, different gro&ps began to #o+pete by re#o&rse to national val&es, #hapter $ Bill shoB hoB #onfli#ting #lai+s to represent national val&es per+eated the field of literary #riti#is+, for e4a+ple. he older disp&tes a+ong indig#nist and pro%Bestern definitions of the *ation reappeared, all sides #lai+ing to represent the tr&e national val&es. 3+pli#it in any definition Bas 0a+ong other things2 a progra+ for the #o+position of the !o+anian #&lt&ral patri+ony. 1ho&ld it in#l&de only those #reations that pla#e the *ation at their #enter, or the Borks of Bestern or other #&lt&res that have inspired !o+anian #reativity as Bell, tying it to Borld #&lt&ral #ir#&itsK "or the for+er, s#hoolbooks +&st noB o+it the fairy tal#s of the Brothers Fri++ and in#l&de only !o+anian histori#al legends and +ythsL tli# portraits of Plato and Aristotle on the Balls of philosophy depart+ents +&st be re+oved and pi#t&res of Blaga/or of Cea&ses#&, that greatest of all !o+anian theorists/p&t in their pla#e.6( "ights over the r#p&bli#ation of earlier thinkers began to take spe#ial a##o&nt of their attit&de to national val&es. "or indig#nists, anathe+atiIed fas#ist *a# lones#& Bas noB a##eptable b&t

Lovines#& Bas definitely o&t. he different #a+ps all strove to #apt&re and s&bd&e to their oBn readings #ertain espe#ially great an#estors/E+ines#&, Blaga, Eliade/for one si+ply #o&ld not afford to be a##&sed of denigrating the+, lest one be branded a traitor to the national #a&se. Altho&gh it is tr&e that so+e of the i+pet&s for this +anip&lation of the *ation by intelle#t&als in the de#ades of the 19;5s and 1985s Bas, pre#isely, the favor shoBn to national val&es by the Cea&ses#& leadership 0itself res&+ing this lang&age, 3 have s&ggested, partly be#a&se of the intelle#t&als- ongoing atta#h+ent to it2, 3 do nofthink the role of identity <&estions &nder Cea&ses#& is ade<&ately e4plained by this @re% 16: 1UPP!E113D* A*' !EA11E! 3D* D" *A 3D*AL (ALUE1 gi+e &se of nationalis+.@ hese <&estions had already a#hieved their oBn a&tono+yL the Party #o&ld not si+ply appropriate the+ and Bave the+ abo&t at Bill. 3ntelle#t&als Bho engaged in arg&+ents abo&t national identity Bere not doing so be#a&se they Bere told to, or be#a&se they Bere alloBed to 0altho&gh that Bas of #o&rse a ne#essary ingredient2 , they Bere doing so be#a&se by these +eans they #o&ld give vent to passionately held resistan#e to 1oviet and.or =ar4ist%Leninist r&le and, at the sa+e ti+e, lay #lai+ to a larger share of reso&r#es in a politi#al Borld in Bhi#h national val&es had only briefly #eased to #arry Beight. heir arg&+ents filled the air Bith national talk that in#reased fro+ barely a&dible in the 19$5s to deafening in the 1985s. Even the Party so+eti+es had tro&ble being heard above the din. Perhaps it Bo&ld not be too +&#h to say that the Party-s oBn national e4aggerations refle#t, pre#isely, the effort that Bas re<&ired to assert so+e a&thority over the national idea. 3t is this &tiliIation in arg&+ent, this dis#o&rse and #o&nter%dis#o&rse, definition and #o&nt#rd#finition, that +ade national ideology so salient in !o+ania. "eB other ideas la&n#hed by the Party, no +atter hoB in#essantly repeated, +anaged to enter into s&#h a dialog&e. Contestation, not +ere repetition, is the vehi#le of ideology, a Bord or sy+bol is a +eans for for+ing #ons#io&sness only if it aro&ses a #o&nt#rBord, a reply. he Bords and sy+bols that did this in Cea&s#s#&-s !o+ania/not be#a&se a Party leadership Banted legiti+a#y b&t be#a&se different kinds of h&+an beings differently sit&ated in the so#ial Borld #ared abo&t those parti#&lar signifi#an#es/Bere Bords abo&t national identity. his is Bhy Cea&s#s#&-s regi+e fo&nd itself #o+pelled, despite the =ar4ist%Leninist orthodo4y its leaders +ight have preferred, to base its sy+boli#%ideologi#al +ode of #ontrol on an ideology that Bas national. And be#a&se that regi+e parti#ipated in it, the national dis#o&rse Bas f&rther invigorated for the politi#s of a post%C#a&ses#& era. Considerations s&#h as these +ight be s&ffi#ient in the+selves to a##o&nt for the d&rability of national talk in !o+ania, b&t they Bere a&g+ented as Bell by syste+i# tenden#ies Bithin the !o+anian for+ ot so#ialist politi#al e#ono+y, an e#ono+y of shortage, a syste+ dyna+i# +a4i+iIing the apparat&s-s #ontrol over reso&r#es for redistrib&tion, and a Beak state trying to proNe#t the appearan#e of strength. 1o+e of these tenden#ies in#reased after the early 19;5s, reprod&#ing national ideology thro&gh ti+e Bell after its initial @#a&ses@ had been s&perseded. he link betBeen national ideology and an e#ono+y of shortage 0to

1UPP!E113D* A*' !EA11E! 3D* D" *A 3D*AL (ALUE1 16; be ill&strated f&rther in #hapter $2 #an be provisionally s&++ariIed as folloBs. Eithin a syste+ of shortage, #ons&+ers at all levels of the syste+/fir+s, ho&seholds, h&ngry individ&als/enter into #o+petition to a#<&ire the goods they need. Unlike #apitalist @de+and%#onstrained@ e#ono+i#s, in Bhi#h a pre+i&+ is pla#ed on +e#hanis+s that fa#ilitate selling goods, the pre+i&+ in s&pply%#onstrained so#ialist syste+s is on +e#hanis+s fa#ilitating a#<&isition. Any devi#e that e4pels potential #o+petitors for goods plays a highly f&n#tional role in s&#h a syste+, fro+ the #ons&+er-s point of vieB. *ational ideology is s&#h a devi#e, it bo&nds the #o++&nity, defining #learly Bho is in and Bho is o&t. 1ignifi#antly, this &se of national ideology do#s not e+anate pri+arily fro+ the top b&t floBs thro&gho&t the ranks of disadvantag#d p&r#hasers loBer doBn. 3t is in the interests of average folks, not the top elite, to red&#e the pool of #o+peting p&r#hasers by keeping +atters of identity fir+ly in +ind. All so#ialist e#ono+i#s have e4hibited ende+i# shortage to so+e degree, b&t this is parti#&larly tr&e of the +ost highly #entraliIed ones/s&#h as !o+ania-s, Bhi#h Bas also the +ost @nationalist.@ Altho&gh this do#s not e4plain Bhy s&#h ideologies arose in the first pla#e, it +ay prove an i+portant #le+ent in perpet&ating the+. A related fa#tor that does e+anate fro+ the top, or at least fro+ the Party b&rea&#ra#y as it e4tends doBnBard into so#iety, is that national ideology serves Bell the syste+i# tenden#y of the politi#al apparat&s to +a4i+iIe the reso&r#es &nder its #ontrol. 3n this Bay, its effe#ts rese+ble those of the #&lt&ral @prote#tionis+@ of interBar Briters Bho Banted a g&aranteed spa#e for their o&tp&t, b&t &nder so#ialis+ s&#h prote#tionist tenden#ies feed the pro#ess of a##&+&lation of the politi#al apparat&s, not of individ&al prod&#ers. "or these p&rposes it is not N&st any national ideology that serves, b&t a definition of national identity that is indigenist. 1&#h a definition fo#&ses on lo#al prod&#tion of val&es and their lo#al appropriation, !o+anian val&es for a !o+anian apparat&s. 3ndigenis+ #reates a !o+anian genealogy Bith no foreign #o&sins Bho +ight have #lai+s on the o&tp&t. As has been s&ggested above and as Bill be f&rther ill&strated in #hapter $, indig#nis+ is pre#isely the definition the !o+anian party leadership #a+e in#reasingly to prefer. A final set of points #on#erning the d&rability of !o+anian nationalis+, espe#ially in the a&sterity%ridden 1985s 0in Bhi#h, of #o&rse, the validity ot the tBo above points is enhan#ed2, relates to the Beakness of so#ialist states and their representation or sy+boli# proNe#tion of the+selves as strong. 3 Bill sidle into this arg&+ent via SoBitt-s fas#inating 168 1UPP!E113D* A*' !EA11E! 3D* D" *A 3D*AL (ALUE1 dis#&ssion of @#astle regi+es@ 0SoBitt 198;2. SoBitt speaks of tBo phases thro&gh Bhi#h +ost Leninist regi+es have passed. Consolidation and 3n#l&sion, and he des#ribes the se<&en#e for the 1oviet #ase, attending espe#ially to hoB the 1oviet leadership #reated and transfor+ed a parti#&lar i+age of itself. 3nitially representing itself as the in#arnation of the Freat D#tober !evol&tion, 1talin-s 1oviet Union Bas an4io&s to ins&late its <&asi%sa#ral identity fro+ Bhat Bere vieBed as potentially @#onta+inating@ do+esti# and international environ+ents . . . he typi#al response of any organiIation relatively se#&re

abo&t poBer and inse#&re abo&t identity is to adopt a dog+ati#ally #on#rete definition of its essential feat&res, to N&4tapose that identity to its potentially #onta+inating environ+ents, and to try to distan#e itself fro+ and do+inate those diff&sely hostile environ+ents. DrganiIations in the develop+ental stage of Consolidation typi#ally adopt @#astle profiles.@ Under 1talin the 1oviet Union be#a+e a @Castle !egi+e@ 0SoBitt 198;, 75:, original e+phasis2. his +eant the @sa#rali4ation@ of the 1oviet Party, set apart fro+ the @-#onta+inating@ and @profane@ realities of !&ssian so#iety and of the larger Borld by ideologi#al, politi#al, and #oer#ive @+oats@ 0ibid., 75;%7582. he rise of neB Leninist regi+es in Eastern E&rope aggravated 1talin-s @#onta+ination an4iety,@ SoBitt arg&es, and res&lted in the #reation of a blo# held together by +e#hani#al rather than organi# solidarity, ea#h regi+e a repli#a and seg+ent of the sa#red #enter rather than a spe#ialiIed pie#e of a Bider 0@organi#@2 division of labor. hese regi+es too began as @#astle regi+es@ separated fro+ their #onta+inating so#ieties by se#ret poli#e @+oats@ 0ibid., 759%7112. 3t Bas pre#isely these feat&res, SoBitt says, that )hr&sh#hev so&ght to alter as he +oved the 1oviet Union fro+ Consolidation to 3n#l&sion, red&#ing the ideologi#al and politi#al tension 0the @+oats@2 betBeen Party and s&rro&nding Borld and trying to bring the +e#hani#ally linked @repli#a regi+es@ into an organi# division of labor. Ee have already seen Bhat the !o+anian leadership tho&ght of this idea. "or the+, +e#hani#al solidarity Bas preferable to organi#, it gave their Party apparat&s the hope of #ontrolling +ore reso&r#es, and +ore signifi#ant ones, as 3 have arg&ed above. o this elite, the Consolidation @phase@ Bas +ore #ongenial than its s&##essor. Here, 3 think, Be see the diffi#&lty inherent in #on#ept&aliIing the history of these regi+es as one of se#&lar trends or @phases.@ Ehat the !o+anian #ase see+s to present &s Bith, rather, is a regi+e that Bent fro+ Consolidation 0the late 1995s and 19$5s2 to 3n#l&sion 0the 19:5s2 and ba#k to Consolidation 1UPP!E113D* A*' !EA11E! 3D* D" *A 3D*AL (ALUE1 169 0the 19;5s and 1985s2. 3 prefer the notion of +odes of #ontrol, Bhi#h in the !o+anian #ase shifted fro+ an initial period of #oer#ive #ontrol to a brief e4peri+ent Bith re+&nerative.sy+boli# #ontrol, then to a +ode at first sy+boli#%ideologi#al and s&bse<&ently +ore and +ore #oer#ive. his +odifi#ation of SoBitt-s ter+s leaves inta#t his #entral insight, hoBever, Bhi#h is that Consolidation regi+es Bith their @#astle@ +entality and i+ages of #onta+ination ar# obsessed Bith the proble+ of identity, a proble+ abo&t Bhi#h national ideologies have a lot to say. Ee #an see hoB the *ation entered into the proble+ of regi+e identity for !o+ania by noting, in the third period even +ore #learly than before, a syste+ of #on#entri# #ir#les/tBo tiers of sa#rality and #onta+ination. "irst Bas the #ontin&ing division betBeen @sa#red@ Party and @#onta+inating@ !o+anian so#iety, evident above all in the sovereign disdain Bith Bhi#h the high priests of !o+anian politi#s treated the pagans Bho Bere their &nfort&nate s&bNe#tsL b&t in addition, the Party identified itself entirely Bith the *ation7@ and saB #onta+ination as #o+ing fro+ beyond the national borders. his Bas apparent in +any for+s, in#l&ding the deter+ined #onstr&#tion of !o+ania as an island of tr&th in a sea of #al&+nies and falsehood/the i+age so+e historians proNe#ted after 198:71/and in re+arks s&#h as these in C#a&X#s#&-s spee#hes, he +igration of foreign tribes and pop&lations . . . #he#ked for h&ndreds of years the develop+ent of the !o+anian people. . . . Another Bell%knoBn tr&th

is that first die +ore advan#ed 'a#o%!o+an #iviliIation, then that of die !o% +anian people, left their i+print on die e4isten#e of the +igratory pop&lations Bhi#h settled in this land 01988, 62. 3n other Bords, !o+anians Bere s&perior to the #onta+inating no+adi# tribes 0H&ngarians and 1lavs2 that s&rro&nded and debased the+. his #onstr&#tion of a &nitary !o+anian Party%*ation as an e4tre+e instan#e of sy+boli# #ontrol Bas taking pla#e, 3 note, in the #onte4t of #entrif&gal tenden#ies perhaps Borse than those of the interBar years, the+selves so prod&#tive of national rhetori#. 1o+e of these tenden#ies Bere ind&#ed by the leadership itself, seeking to transfer the advantages of blo#Bide +e#hani#al solidarity to the ne4t level doBn, it applied a poli#y of @self%provisioning@ _a&to%gestionBre^ at the level of ea#h #o&nty and, insofar as possible, to #o++&ne &nits Bithin the+. Ea#h &nit Bas e4pe#ted to be +a4i+ally self% s&ffi#ient in the foodst&ffs and other +aterials it re<&ired/Bithin the #onstraints of heavy #entral planning, of 175 1UPP!E113D* A*' !EA11E! 3D* D" *A 3D*AL (ALUE1 #o&rse, this Bas not part of a de#entraliIing refor+. Co&nties and even #ities bartered Bith one another in kind to +ake &p shortfalls. 76 3n 1985 a highly pla#ed ind&strial b&rea&#rat told an A+eri#an e#ono+ist that the #entral +inistries had lost #ontrol of invest+ent floBs and de#isions, as the heads of large enterprises bypassed the +inistries to go dire#tly to C#a&ses#& for things like per+ission to b&y e4pensive foreign e<&ip+ent.77 3n SoBitt-s vieB, @self% provisioning@ res&lted in @so#ialist fe&dalis+,@ the #enter in#reasingly poBerless as it depended in#reasingly on the loBer%level &nits Bhose prod&#ts Bere essential to paying off the foreign debt. 79 Co&nties #a+e to rese+ble independent fiefdo+s, held together by the &nending peregrinations of C#a&ses#& +&#h as Charle+agne &nified his kingdo+ in +edieval ti+es. 3n a different vein, intelle#t&als in ransylvania spoke to +e Bith intense passion of their proNe#ts to develop a @ ransylvanian #&lt&ral politi#s,@ opposed to Bhat Bas happening in the #enter. Dthers reported hoB the stat&e of ransylvanian philosopher%poet L&#ian Blaga Bas +oved/Bitho&t the approval of B&#harest7$ /fro+ an invisible #orner of the Cl&N #ity park to a pla#e of honor before the *ational heater. Alongside these #entrif&gal tenden#ies there re+ained the intra#table proble+ of !o+ania-s national +inorities, parti#&larly the H&ngarians, Bhose +ass, r#s%tiv#n#ss, and potential irr#d#nds+ posed as +any diffi#&lties in the 1985s as they had in the !o+ania of the 1975s. 3f these e4a+ples s&ggest an erosion of internal #entral #ontrol, the late 1985s eroded so+ething else e<&ally &psetting to the leadership, !o+ania-s e#ono+i# independen#e fro+ the so#ialist blo#. Ehile the 19:5s and 19;5s Bere the era of groBing #onne#tions Bith the Eest, the 1985s saB the #o&ntry-s rein#orporadon into the East. he share of !o+ania-s trade going to other blo# #o&ntries rose fro+ 79 per#ent in 1985 to $7 per#ent in 1987 and to $; per#ent in 198$L trade Bith the 1oviet Union greB fro+ 1; per#ent in 1986 to 66 per#ent in 1989 to 77 per#ent in 198: 0Feorg#s#& 1988, ;;2. Eitho&t the 1oviet +arket, less de+anding than Bestern ones, !o+ania-s trade Bo&ld have been in serio&s diffi#&lty 0ibid., 8$2.7: hese reversals a##o+panied battered relations Bith Bestern states/the BithdraBal of U.1. =ost%"avored% *ation stat&s and of so+e E&ropean a+bassadors, for e4a+ple/#onne#ted Bith Bestern reassess+ents ofC#a&ses#&-s h&+an rights poli#ies.

Here, then, ar# all the ele+ents of a Beak state presiding over a frag+ented so#iety and s&ffering a reneBed 1oviet dependen#y, yet speaking as lo&dly as possible of the &nity and independen#e of the *ation. 1UPP!E113D* A*' !EA11E! 3D* D" *A 3D*AL (ALUE1 171 o &nderstand this spee#h as si+ply a +anip&lation of pop&lar s&pport i+poverishes Bhat Bas in fa#t a +&#h +ore &rgent and #onse<&ential proNe#t, to #onstit&te, thro&gh dis#o&rse, Bholeness for a reality that Bas in frag+ents and sovereignty for a vassal/to #onstit&te a Bholeness and a sovereignty that Bere i+aginary. Cears of trying to b&ild &p a state resting on a teleology of progressive #hange and an ideology of internationalis+ 0Bith the a##eptan#e of internal diversity2 had ended in the realiIation that the state #o&ld ade<&ately #onstr&#t itself only in ter+s of Bhat it had at first denied, a teleology of national #ontin&ity and an ideology of national val&es, pre+ised on internal &nifor+ity.7; hro&gh national ideology, the leadership represented its Beak state and regi+e as the e+bodi+ent of a strong, a&tono+o&s, &nified Bill 0#f. Anagnost 1988L L#fort 198:2. 3n 'e#e+ber 1989, this i+aginary #onstr&#t Bas s+ashed, liberating the national dis#o&rse/noB strengthened by its asso#iation Bith a +onolithi# poBer/for &se in a neB politi#al environ+ent. An a##o&nt of the prevalen#e of !o+anian national ideology in the 19;5s and 1985s +&st at the sa+e ti+e s&ggest, if only s&++arily, Bhy national rhetori# penetrated !o+ania-s @air spa#e@ so +&#h +ore than that of other East E&ropean #o&ntries, as +any e4ternal observers believe 0see, e.g.. )ing 1985, 1612. "irst, any regi+e that opted for de#entraliIation or for a +ode of #ontrol other than the sy+boli# +ight not be e4pe#ted to +anifest +&#h national rhetori# at the offi#ial level. H&ngary presents the starkest #ontrast, the defeat of the 19$: &prising fore#losed any e+phasis on national ideology and #o+pelled a Beakened Party to adopt a re+&nerative strategy, Bhi#h it i+ple+ented via de#entraliIation and refor+. A si+ilar arg&+ent #o&ld be +ade for CIe#hoslovakia after 19:8, b&t in that #ase re+&nerative #ontrol #a+e Bith higher #entraliIation and #oer#ion than in H&ngary. Dther regi+es that retained a high degree of #entraliIation, s&#h as East Fer+any, did not fa#e the !o+anian regi+e-s history of intense debate abo&t the national identity, to the e4tent that s&#h a thing had been part of Fer+an life in the 1975s, the entire raison d-etre of Co++&nist party r&le in divided Fer+any Bas to oppose the for+s and fas#ist #onse<&en#es of Fer+an nationalis+. he evol&tion in Poland rese+bled that in !o+ania in several respe#ts, b&t after e4peri+ents in the 19$5s and 19:8 Bith a nationalist legiti+ation #o+parable to !o+ania-s, the Fi#r#k leadership veered 176 1UPP!E113D* A*' !EA11E! 3D* D" *A 3D*AL (ALUE1 sharply into a re+&nerative +ode of #ontrol, based in standard%of%living g&arantees shored &p not by de#entraliIation, as in H&ngary, b&t by i+ports. B&lgaria appeared in the 1985s to have entered &pon an era of offi#ial id#ologiIation not &nlike !o+ania-s, b&t this folloBed earlier +odes of #ontrol in Bhi#h re+&nerative strategi#s end&red longer than in the !o+anian #ase and a##o+panied a loBer degree of #entraliIation, Bith #onse<&ently less severe shortage. 3n addition, interBar B&lgaria/tr&n#ated rather than enlarged, and therefore losing rather than gaining national +inorities/+ay have been less obsessed Bith denning the *ation than Bas !o+ania, for all the

reasons +entioned in #hapter 1L th&s, B&lgarian #o++&nists perhaps inherited a less rob&stly instit&tionaliIed national ideology than did the Party in !o+ania. 3 have tried to shoB here Bhy 3 think one +&st se# a national dis#o&rse in !o+ania as +ore than so+ething &sed instr&+entally by the Co++&nist party b&t as, rather, ins#ribed in and e+anating fro+ +any <&arters of !o+anian so#iety. Be#a&se of its for#e in other <&arters, be#a&se others &sed it in their oBn battles and so&ght to i+pose their oBn +eanings on it, the Party had to strive as Bell to #ontrol the i+age of !o+anian identity and to defend this i+age as ade<&ately representing and prote#ting the *ation-s interests. hese efforts prod&#ed and reprod&#ed !o+anian national ideology, as a field of #ontention Bhose sy+bols Bere alBays open to other &ses. 3n *ove+ber 198;, for e4a+ple, rioting Borkers in Brasov sang the hy+n of the nineteenth% #ent&ry national +ove+ent @!o+anian, ABakeA@L st&dent de+onstrators at lasi &niversity the folloBing spring gathered aro&nd the stat&e of national hero Al#4andr& loan C&Ia, first sovereign of a &nited !o+ania. =y dis#&ssion has not even +entioned so+e of the other i+portant so#ial a#tors Bith Bho+ the Party #ontended/the Drthodo4 Ch&r#h, for one. 78 Another e4#eedingly i+portant parti#ipant, Bho+ 3 leave o&t of this book only for la#k of e4pertise and spa#e, is the #ir#le ot !o+anian e+igres, parti#&larly in Paris and =&ni#h, Bho shaped the broad#asts of !adio "ree E&rope and of several infl&ential e+igre p&bli#ations. 3n offering their oBn i+ages of !o+ania, they provoked #o&nt#ri+ages fro+ !o+ania-s intelle#t&als and Party offi#ials, Bho str&ggled to keep the e+igre i+age fro+ prevailing abroad. o say that the !o+anian Co++&nist Party Bas +erely one of several so#ial a#tors Bho spoke a lang&age of national identity in politi#al str&ggle is not to say, hoBever, that all these #o+petitors enNoyed e<&al 1UPP!E113D* A*' !!A11E! 3D* D" *A 3D*AL (ALUE1 177 footing. hey did not, the Party Bas instit&tionally +ore poBerf&l than all the others, and it set the prin#ipal #onditions of their spee#h. "ro+ the Party #a+e the notions of1talinis+ and dog+atis+ that Bo&ld be so a#tive in battles Bithin #&lt&re in s&bse<&ent de#adesL fro+ the Party #a+e the initiative that bro&ght a s&bterranean lang&age of national val&es ba#k above gro&ndL fro+ Party leaders #a+e the restri#tions on #&lt&ral a#tivity that polariIed the field of #&lt&ral prod&#tion and a+plified its lang&age of #onfli#t, a lang&age that Bas national. And fro+ the Party b&rea&#ra#y Bere disb&rsed the reso&r#es that s&stained #&lt&ral life and that had to be #o+peted for, &lti+ately, in the lang&age the Party a&thoriIed. hat the Party a&thoriIed this lang&age do#s not i+ply, nonetheless, #ontrol over its +eanings or an end to sy+boli# battles toBard this end, battles Bhose #onse<&en#es sho&ld not be &nderesti+ated. he erosion of !o+ania-s i+age as a #iviliIed, E&ropean #o&ntry #ontrib&ted, in the late 1985s, to the diffi#&lties and event&al overthroB of C#a&ses#&-s di#tatorship. After years of Bestern favor for the blo#-s independent @+averi#k,@ Besterners #a+e to se# Cea&s#s#&-s !o+ania as an eastern despotis+, &nreliable in its adheren#e to E&ropean nor+s. Conse<&ent s&spension of =ost%"avored%*ation stat&s and nor+al diplo+ati# relations aggravated the +isery and h&+iliation that led !o+anians finally to rise &p against the regi+e. he inti+ate ti# betBeen !o+ania-s identity and the #r&+bling of Cea&s#s#&-s di#tatorship is noBhere

better shoBn than in the letter si4 Co++&nist party veterans addressed to C#a&s#s#& in =ar#h 1989, #ited in +y 3ntrod&#tion, Bhi#h said, !o+ania is and re+ains a E&ropean #o&ntry, and as s&#h it +&st +ove forBard Bithin the fra+eBork of the Helsinki pro#ess rather than t&rning against that pro#ess. Co& have beg&n to #hange the geography of the r&ral areas, b&t yo& #annot +ove !o+ania into Afri#a. "or the signers of this letter, !o+ania-s E&ropean identity Bas a potent sy+bol both Bithin the #o&ntry and in the Eest, and !o+ania-s threatened @+ove into Afri#a@ a #a&se for rebellion. his, then, Bas the environ+ent for the #&lt&ral politi#s to be des#ribed in the #hapters to folloB. 3t Bas an environ+ent of high #entraliIation and tight #ontrol by a Party that nonetheless did not #o++and its so#ietyL an environ+ent of tre+endo&s shortage in all spheres, Bith ra+pant #o+petition for a#t&al and sy+boli# reso&r#es. 3ts leadership-s +ode of #ontrol gave an i+pli#it edge to prod&#ers of #&lt&re, 179 1UPP!E113D* A*' !EA11E! 3D* D" *A 3D*AL (ALUE1 Bhile &nder+ining their #apa#ity to prod&#e independently. 1&bse<&ent #hapters ill&strate the appropriation and r#appropriation of national sy+bols, the definition and redefinition of #&lt&ral #anons, the #onfli#ting revaloriIations of a##&+&lated #&lt&ral val&es that res&lted fro+ this sit&ation and that reprod&#ed national ideology year after year, de#ade after de#ade, e4asperating the atte+pts of the Party leadership to bring the national dis#o&rse Bithin its e4#l&sive #ontrol.

PA! 33 Cases CHAP E! "DU! The Means of Conflict: "#litism," "$ogmatism," and Indigeni%ations of Mar&ism 17; Even if no other legal parties e4ist, other parties in fa#t alBays do e4ist and other tenden#ies Bhi#h #annot be legally #oer#edL and, against these, pole+i#s are &nleashed and str&ggles are fo&ght as in a ga+e of blind +an-s b&ff. 3n any #ase it is #ertain that in s&#h parties #&lt&ral f&n#tions predo+inate, Bhi#h +eans that politi#al lang&age be#o+es Nargon. 3n other Bords, politi#al <&estions are disg&ised as #&lt&ral ones, and as s&#h be#o+e insol&ble. /Antonio Fra+s#i Chapters $ thro&gh ; des#ribe three #ontests Bithin three areas of !o+anian #&lt&re/literary #riti#is+, historiography, and philosophy. hese ar# b&t three of the +any #ontests and the +any areas of !o+anian #&lt&re in Bhi#h the shift of e+phasis Bithin the Party leadership, its reass#rtion of #ontrol over #&lt&ral prod&#tion, and the e#ono+i# diffi#&lties of the 1985s heightened the #o+petition a+ong intelle#t&als. heir #o+petition took several for+s that left no p&bli#ly Britten tra#e, <&ests for patronage and infl&en#e, gossip and ba#kbiting, deals and #o+pro+ises, and so on. 3n addition, it took the for+ +ost typi#al of #o+bat a+ong intelle#t&als, Britten Bords. 178 =EA*1 D" CD*"L3C he Bords thro&gh Bhi#h #&lt&ral prod&#ers fo&ght Bere often spe#ifi# to their dis#iplines, literati Briting abo&t aestheti#s and literary val&es, for e4a+ple, and historians abo&t the @s#ientifi#@ interpretation of spe#ifi# events. A n&+ber of Bords and rhetori#al devi#es, hoBever, along Bith a n&+ber of ta#ti#s, reg&larly appeared in +ore than one #onte4t. 3n this #hapter- 3 des#ribe a feB of the +ost fre<&ent devi#es and ta#ti#s thro&gh Bhi#h intelle#t&als tried to dis<&alify their opponents and to position the+selves +ore favorably. he ones 3 ill&strate here, so+e briefly and so+e in detail, Bere i+portant ele+ents of the str&ggles dis#&ssed in #hapters $ thro&gh ;L those #hapters Bill be easier to folloB if 3 des#ribe the +aNor rhetori#al +oves and their +eanings in advan#e, even tho&gh the +eanings Bere f&lly realiIed only in the #onte4t of parti#&lar disp&tes. 3 #on#entrate on 012 a series of #on#erns fa+iliar fro+ #hapter 1/and therefore treated s&++arily here/ abo&t @foreign i+ports1-and !o+ania-s link to Borld #&lt&reL 062 a##&sations of @elitis+,@ @fas#is+,@ @dog+atis+,@ and @prolet#&ltis+@L and 072 the te#hni<&e of bringing into one-s intelle#t&al lineage 0or e4#l&ding fro+ that of others2 great fig&res of !o+ania-s #&lt&ral past. his last te#hni<&e, Bhi#h 3 #all @genealogi#al appropriation,@ +ay entail playing &p 0or doBn2 s&itable portions of a great +an-s op&s so as to e+phasiIe one-s affinity Bith hi+, interpreting his Bork sele#tively, or, so+eti+es, #reating an altogether neB identity for hi+ 0for e4a+ple, a poet is re+ade into a so#iologist2. here Bas +&#h +ore to the verbal #onfli#t of !o+anian #&lt&ral politi#s than +erely rando+ e4#hanges of barbed Bords, the environ+ent itself gave #ertain verbal Beapons added for#e. he reason Bas the nat&re of b&rea&#rati# s&pport for #&lt&re. As 3 s&ggested in #hapter 6 and Bill arg&e f&rther in

#hapter $, +&#h of the politi#king in !o+anian #&lt&ral life involved efforts to obtain s&pport fro+ the politi#al #enter, Bhether in the for+ of f&nds, per+ission to p&blish, s&pplies of paper, perf&n#tory #ensorship, posts in &niversities and instit&tes, or other s&#h things. o gain #entral ba#king re<&ired &sing arg&+ents and idio+s the #enter fo&nd pers&asive. 3n this book 3 generally speak of these as arg&+ents abo&t #&lt&ral representativeness, Bith vario&s #ontenders #lai+ing to represent !o+ania-s #&lt&ral interests best, in hopes that their progra+ Bo&ld pers&ade the #enter to s&pport the+. 3n C#a&s#s#&-s !o+ania, there Bere tBo sets of idio+s the #enter tended to find pers&asive, initially there Bas only the lang&age of =ar4is+%Leninis+, on Bhi#h the regi+e ostensibly rested, later Noined by the lang&age of national val&es, Bhi#h #oe4isted Bith and in#reasingly dis% =EA*1 D" CD*"L3C 179 pla#ed it. Appeals 0or a##&sations against an opponent2 that e+ployed either of these tBo idio+s Bere +ore likely to be effi#a#io&s than appeals or a##&sations #o&#hed in other ter+s. Altho&gh these idio+s Bere both privileged at the #enter, they did not enNoy e<&al favor a+ong +ost +e+bers of so#iety. *early all !o+anians 3 have +et, regardless of so#ial position, are deeply atta#hed to the val&es of the *ation, Bhereas the val&es of =ar4is+%Leninis+ have enNoyed the respe#t of al+ost none. Cet effe#tive politi#al a#tion often involved &sing both idio+s, often si+&ltaneo&sly. he #ond&#t of intelle#t&al politi#s therefore entailed Bhat 3 #all the @indigeniIation of =ar4is+@, the in#orporation of #ategories fro+ =ar4is+% Leninis+ into arg&+ents in Bhi#h ethni# or national <&estions had priority. =ore pre#isely, it +eans the s&bordination of the i+posed =ar4ist%Leninist dis#o&rse to the ter+s of the national dis#o&rse, res&lting in the s&bversion of =ar4is+%Leninis+-s #entral ter+s. =y &se of the Bord @=ar4is+@ here is a+big&o&s. 1tri#tly speaking, =ar4is+ is +erely a so#ial theory that has inspired a variety of instit&tionaliIed regi+es/ Leninis+, 1talinis+, Forba#hev-s p#r#stroika, @Cea&sis+@/in Bhi#h the +eanings of ter+s and #on#epts differ s&bstantially fro+ those in =ar4-s theoreti#al analyses. Altho&gh the instit&tionaliIed for+ is generally #alled @v&lgar@ or @orthodo4@ or @offi#ial@ =ar4is+, to disting&ish it fro+ its nobler and +ore s&pple an#estor, for the +ost part 3 avoid this stylisti#ally #&+berso+e <&alifier. 3n Bhat folloBs, it is the @v&lgar,@ offi#ial +eaning of =ar4is+ that 3 intend, e4#ept in the feB pla#es Bhere 3 e4pli#itly state that so+eone is Borking Bith =ar4-s analyti# tools. o speak of the indigeniIation of =ar4is+ is to draB attention to a +aNor proble+ fa#ed by Eastern E&rope-s =ar4ist%Leninist regi+es, hoB #o&ld a lang&age of politi#s that Bas i+posed by for#e fro+ o&tside be#o+e part of +eaningf&l politi#al a#tion Bithin a so#ietyK HoB did poBerf&l pree4isting dis#o&rses, s&#h as the national one, do+esti#ate the intr&der, be#o+ing in their t&rn part of its traNe#tory as the tBo bonded together toBard for+ing a neB hege+oni# orderK here is to +y knoBledge no literat&re on this topi#, only so+e &sef&l hints. Er%nesto La#la& has Britten, for e4a+ple, of the rhetori#al for+ =ar4is+ +&st take if it is to in#orporate e4isting ideologies rather than r&nning agro&nd on the+, he validity of =ar4is+ Bill th&s depend on its #apa#ity to interr&pt other dis% #o&rses, to #onstit&te neB obNe#ts and to prod&#e a neB field of &nderstand%

195 =EA*1 D" CD*"L3C ings. Dther dis#o&rses 0tlie dis#o&rse of the nation, the dis#o&rse of de+o#ra#y, the dis#o&rse of se4&ality2 ar# no longer s&perstr&#t&res, si+ply ideologi#al refle#tions of an e4tra%dis#&rsiv# +ove+ent of things. hey are +aterial for#es Bhi#h #onstit&te s&bNe#ts, Bhi#h prod&#e effe#ts and fa#ed Bith Bhi#h =ar4is+ +&st prove its validity by ttie effe#ts that it prod&#es and not thanks to any kind of a priori onrologi#al privilege 0La#la& =1, 72. 6 !egardless of Bhat Party leaders +ight have hoped 0and largely be#a&se of the i+perio&s +anner in Bhi#h they e+ployed =ar4ist ter+s2, the rhetori# of !o+anian #&lt&ral politi#s a##o+plished pre#isely the reverse. 3nstead of #onstr&#ting =ar4is+ as a separate and vital for#e, it indig#niI#d =ar4is+, interr&pted the =ar4ist dis#o&rse Bith a national one, and reprod&#ed s&bNe#ts for Bho+ =ar4is+ had little validity e4#ept, t#n&o&sly, in relation to the dis#o&rse on the *ation. Eere it not that any #o+petition for b&rea&#rati# f&nds had to avail itself of #on#epts the b&rea&#ra#y had instit&tionaliIed, =ar4is+ Bo&ld not have entered #&lt&ral politi#s at all. Contests for #&lt&ral representativ#ness in the lang&age of national identity nonetheless had to entBine the+selves Bith those =ar4ist ter+s. he present #hapter ill&strates hoB this took pla#e, as spe#ifi# vehi#les of #&lt&ral str&ggle at the sa+e ti+e indig#niI#d =ar4is+. Altho&gh the apparent o&t#o+e in so#ialist !o+ania Bas that national ideology flo&rished Bhile =ar4ist #ategories Bithered, their aBkBard &nion +ay Bell bear fr&it in the postso#ialist era, in Bhi#h s&#h a##&sations as @elitist,@ @fas#ist,@ and espe#ially @dog+atist@ 0all derived fro+ the regi+e-s offi#ial rhetori#2 +ay Bell have an a#tive life.

0oreign #mports5 '3niversa"it&5' and (epresentativeness

Chapter 1 has already shoBn that long before the #o++&nist takeover in !o+ania, one #o&ld a##o+plish heavy politi#al Bork by a##&sing opponents of borroBing foreign +odels for !o+ania-s #&lt&ral or e#ono+i# develop+ent. 3ndig#nists #harged th#n%@pro%B#st#rn@ ene+ies Bith betraying the national val&es in preferen#e for things fro+ abroad, Bhi#h st&nted the groBth of val&es that +ight be n&rt&red at ho+e. As 3 s&ggested earlier, arg&+ents of this type effe#ted a kind of #&lt&ral prote#tionis+, ins&lating lo#al #&lt&ral +ar% kets fro+ the infl&4 of foreign books and ideas 0see Anderson 19872. =EA*1 D" CD*"L3C 191 hey also fa#ilitated #lai+s &pon a politi#al b&rea&#ra#y deter+ined to #onsolidate the position of !o+anian #&lt&re in a +&ltinational state. E4a#tly these sa+e #harges appeared in !o+ania of the 19;5s and 1985sL all that differed Bas the #onte4t in Bhi#h they Bere +ade and the syste+i# tenden#ies they served. Eith so#ialis+, the relative signifi#an#e of prote#ted +arkets di+inished, and #lai+s &pon the state be#a+e a +&#h larger part of the s&stenan#e for #&lt&re. *evertheless, in%dig#nists still a##&sed their opponents of destroying !o+anian #&lt&re by i+itations &ns&it#d to the national #hara#ter. heir opponents so+eti+es #o&nt#ratta#k#d Bith the arg&+ent that if nothing b&t lo#al val&es ar# prod&#ed and #elebrated, !o+anian #reations Bill never enter the @#ir#&it of &niversality,@ that is, gain Borld re#ognition as #&lt&rally val&able. Both sides insisted that theirs Bas the best defense of !o+anian val&es, one gro&p averring that it prote#ts !o+ania

fro+ being overBhel+ed by alien for+s, the other that it g&arantees the entry of !o+anian #&lt&re onto the Borld stage, Bhere the too%paro#hial prod&#ts of an e4#essive indig#nis+ Bill never appear. Arg&+ents abo&t @foreign ness@@ and @&niversality@ Bere also, of #o&rse, arg&+ents abo&t identity, #&lt&ral representativ#ness, and another ter+ linked Bith these tBo, @a&thenti#ity.@ 'ebates in +any fields #on#erned hoB to define and represent a pie#e of !o+anian #&lt&re to itself and to the Borld, so+e persons raising &p any prod&#t regarded as lo#al or @a&thenti#@ Bhile a##&sing others of i+periling these Bith @foreign@ val&es and standards. Appeals to @&niversality@ Bere, in these people-s vieB, +erely a #over for #&lt&ral i+perialis+. he others pointed vigoro&sly to great !o+anian #reations that had #learly been inspired by or @syn#hroniIed@ Bith Bestern develop+ents. hey invoked !o+anians- E&ropean identity to arg&e Bhy Bestern infl&en#e Bas not ne#essarily so @foreign@ and Bo&ld generate #&lt&ral #reations f&lly representative of the geni&s of !o+anians. 0Eitho&t s&#h N&stifi#ation, one-s translation of Ba&drillard or 'errida +ight go &np&blished.2 hese arg&+ents as to Bhat Bas alien infl&en#e and Bhat Bas gen&inely representative #rossed international borders to in#l&de !o+anian opponents o&tside !o+ania as Bell as Bithin it. Dne #ol&+nist for a #&lt&ral +agaIine s&stained a long diatribe entitled @1hort%Bave Pse&do%#&lt&re,@ repeatedly <&estioning Bho is to define @tr&e@ #&lt&re and Bho is to represent it. he obNe#t of his atta#k Bas !adio "ree E&rope, r&n by a gro&p he depi#ted as @traitors@ 0in#l&ding the e+igre da&ghter of @syn#hronist@ Lovin#s#& Use# #hapter 1V2 ai+ing @defa+atory 196 =EA*1 D" CD*"L3C #a+paigns@ at the #&lt&re of a !o+ania they had abandoned and noB Bished to destroy. Even this international atta#k, hoBever, also targeted the pro% Best#rnis+ of #riti#s and literary historians inside !o+ania, #alling their r#pr#s#ntativeness into <&estion. o a !o+anian b&rea&#ra#y p&rs&ing a poli#y of e#ono+i# a&tar#hy and dispensing s&pport for #&lt&re d&ring a fis#al #risis, the representation that probably see+ed +ore s&itable Bas one that red&#ed the #ost of i+ports/a kind of @i+port%s&bstit&tion@ poli#y for #&lt&ral ite+s 0!o+anian%+ade fil+s, for e4a+ple, rather than the A+eri#an or Eest E&ropean serials #o++on in the 19;5s, and !o+anian books rather than the Bestern ones Bhose translation rights gobble &p s#ar#e foreign #&rren#y2. "or this and a variety of other reasons, the !o+anian party leadership of the 19;5s and 1985s opted for indig#nist arg&+ents over pro%Bestern ones in the #&lt&ral sphere. his Bas evident in Cea&ses#&-s spee#h <&oted at the head of #hapter 7, as Bell as in +any other prono&n#e+ents. 3t is &nne#essary to dBell f&rther on @foreign i+ports@ as a Beapon in #&lt&ral #onfli#ts, other than to note that altho&gh s&#h a #harge &s&ally #riti#iIed i+itation of the Eest, it #o&ld refer as Bell to i+itation of 1oviet pra#ti#es. his Bill be i+portant in dis#&ssing @dog+atis+,@ beloB.

'/"itism' and Cognizant )u6"ics

Dne poBerf&l Bay of &nder+ining others- #&lt&ral repr#%sentativ#n#ss Bas to a##&se the+ of @elitis+.@ o +ake s&#h a #harge Bas to sele#t an instr&+ent fro+ the arsenal of =ar4ist &nderstandings abo&t #lass str&ggle and e+ploy it

to i+prove one-s oBn sit&ation, Bith respe#t to the a&thorities Bho dispensed f&nds and to the a&dien#es at Bho+ #&lt&re Bas dire#ted. An a##&sation of elitis+ #reated tBo opposed #ategories, elitists, disdainf&l of the +asses, and those ostensibly on the side of the +asses, Bho Brite in a +anner a##essible to the+ and profess faith in their intelligen#e. Here are tBo e4a+ples, he sy+pto+s of elitist leanings ar# still fre<&ent eno&gh. Ee have heard insistent theoriIing abo&t the easy%going, laIy, d&ll, i+be#ile reader, in#apable of de#iphering the s&btleties of +odern literat&re. his #o+es fro+ an elitist tenden#y that tries to belittle and in#&lpate the reader. he sa+e tenden#y is ill&strated also by the persisten#e of #ertain Borks that have no a&dien#e and ar# &s&ally &nreadable b&t are faithf&l to so+e elitist +odel. And Be #an dete#t an =EA*1 D" CD*"L3C 197 elitist dire#tion in the e4#essive stake that so+e people pla#e on spe#ialiIing die a#t of #riti#is+, by &sing an ostentatio&s ter+inology ina##essible to die &ninitiated 0P&r#ar& 198:, :;%:82. 3 a+ in die gro&p of those Bho Brite #onte+porary !o+anian literat&re . . . 3n fa#t, this gro&p is the +ost n&+ero&s and poBerf&l . . . he other so%#alled @gro&plets,@ elitist and n#o%#litist, are +inor and peripheral, and only a #ertain 0old2 fra+eBork of a#tivity helps the+ rise to the s&rfa#e of the Bater, Bhi#h they so+eti+es +&ddy so they #an keep afloat Bitho&t being seen for Bhat they are, so#ial resid&a .... 0ibid., 1$:/1$;2. Clearly, neither +asses nor Party leaders sho&ld tr&st s&#h @elitist@ Briters and #riti#s to represent !o+anian #&lt&re. DBing to their i+plied bo&rgeois origin 0the @elitist gro&plets@ rest on old fra+eBorks for a#tion and ar# so#ial resid&a2, they hold the !o+anian +asses in #onte+pt. Another sin i+p&ted to @elitists@ Bas #os+opolitanis+, a @non%!o+anian@ trait invoking the alleged foreign #&lt&ral preferen#es and.or origins of #ertain !o+anian elites of the past. Cos+opolitan elitists #o+bine #lass sin Bith for#ignn#ssL s&#h persons, this #harge insin&ates, #annot possibly represent the tr&e spirit of the !o+anian people. 3n #ontrast, it is &nderstood that the a##&sing @patriots@ #an be #o&nted &pon to represent and defend !o+anian #&lt&re properly, both to !o+anian a&dien#es and to the Borld. 3f to be #&lt&rally representative in Cea&ses#&-s !o+ania Bas to gain poBer and #&lt&ral reso&r#es fro+ above, then a #harge of elitis+ ai+ed to deprive opponents of a##ess to those things. Allegations of elitis+ not only infl&en#ed the positioning of gro&ps in relation to poBer, hoBever, b&t served +ore broadly to re#onfig&re pla#es in the entire so#ial pyra+id that in#l&ded persons of relatively loBer and higher stat&s. o +ake a s&##essf&l #lai+ to stat&s as a bearer of #&lt&ral a&thority re<&ires that this a&thority be a#knoBledged by others 0Bo&rdi#& 198$, ;75%;712, Bho re#ogniIe both that it is of val&e and that they the+selves have less of it. herefore, part of for+ing and reprod&#ing elite gro&ps is the for+ation of a &nified field, Bhi#h in#l&des persons of @loB@ #&lt&re Bho Bill re#ogniIe the s&perior #lai+s of those possessing @high@ #&lt&re. Elites #an s&##essf&lly #lai+ stat&s as bearers of litera#y, for e4a+ple, only if there is a p&bli# that is s&ffi#iently literate both to val&e this di+ension and to a#knoBledge its oBn defi#ien#y thereon. Ee +ight #all this a @#ogniIant p&bli#,@ disting&ishing it fro+ nonelite gro&ps Bho ar# BoB#ogniIant/Bho do not parti#ipate in a

&nified field Bith those elites and th&s do not re#ogniIe

199 =EA*1 D" CD*"L3C the signifi#an#e of elite endoB+ents and #lai+s. A +aNor +eans of for+ing a #ogniIant p&bli# is the @#iviliIing@ +ission so+e elites la&n#h Bith their inner @pri+itives,@ Bho+ they seek to ill&+inate Bith learning that Bill dispel the +ists of darkness. CiviliIing +issions have been bro&ght to #olonial peoples by agents of i+perial poBers/the rhetori# of English i+perialis+ is a fine e4a+ple/and also by Bo&ld%b# national elites, #iviliIing the @ba#kBard@ peasants of their oBn territories 0as in #hapter 12. 1een in this light, #harges of elitis+ atta#ked the allegian#e of an opponents #ogniIant p&bli#. his p&bli# #onsisted not only of b&rea&#rats, a#knoBledging the stat&s of petitioners to favor, b&t of a&dien#es for #&lt&ral prod&#ts/ a&dien#es that took on neB i+portan#e Bhen !o+anian #&lt&re Bas partially r##o++odified, as e4plained in #hapter 7. o a##&se a Briter or poet of elitis+ #o&ld drive aBay potential #ons&+ers of his or her novels and poe+s. Ehen dire#ted at literary #riti#s, it said to the a&dien#e, @'o not a##ept these people-s N&dg+ent of +y bookL their interests ar# antide+o#rati#.@ he stakes behind s&#h a #harge Bere therefore threefold, it ai+ed to dis<&alify in politi#al, so#ial%stat&s, and e#ono+i# ter+s. An a##&sation of elitis+ Bas a poBerf&l Beapon of e4#l&sion, fashioned fro+ a =ar4ist lang&age and bro&ght into the servi#e of #&lt&ral%politi#al battles. 3t took an idea sat&rated Bith the +&#h%drilled notion of #lass str&ggle 0Bhi#h, 3 #an affir+ on the basis of tBenty +onths- field resear#h in !o+anian villages, has not been Bitho&t p&bli# effe#t2 and e+ployed it for #o+petitive advantage. he la#ti# had a n&+ber of variants, s&#h as the #o+plaint that the a#tions of a #ertain gro&p ignore @#o++&nal interests@ or reek of a @proprietary attit&de@ to p&bli# goods or ar# #hara#teristi# of a @rentier +entality@ 0se# Braes#& 1986Y and e2. All of the+ +ade an i+pli#it appeal to =ar4ist notions so as to #onde+n so+ething in the behavior of others. As Bill be seen in the e4a+ples of later #hapters, the #onde+nation al+ost alBays i+plied a la#k of patrioti# atta#h+ent to the val&es of the !o+anian *ation, Bhi#h @anti%elitists@ e<&ated Bith the !o+anian +asses. 3n #o&nt#ratta#k so+e people appropriated =ar4ist ter+s of a different sort. hey #lai+ed, for e4a+ple, to &phold @rationalis+,@ a <&ality of the enlightened tho&ght of Bhi#h =ar4is+ is the apogee, and to oppose @irrationalis+ and +ysti#is+,@ #ardinal sins in the offi#ial =ar4ist analysis of fas#is+ and rightist #&rrents in earlier ti+es. A #lassi# instan#e is one s#holar-s advo#a#y of interBar philosopher !ad&l#s#&%=otr& as greater than others of his ti+e 0s&#h as L&#ian Blaga2, on the gro&nds that the for+er Bas a rationalist and the others strayed #lose =EA*1 D" CD*"L3C 19$ to +ysti#is+ 0se# Drn#a 198$\, 189%1892. his i+pli#itly a##&sed Blaga-s latter%day s&pporters of rightist asso#iations &nbefitting a #o++&nist. Dther &ses of offi#ial =ar4ist #ategories in#l&ded #onfli#ting #lai+s as to Bho pra#ti#ed @diale#ti#al thinking@ best and #o&ld, on these gro&nds, obtain prefer+ent 0see #hapter ;2. 3n +any altho&gh not all s&#h +oves, the advo#ates of @rationalis+@ or @diale#ti#s@ Bere not defending notions to Bhi#h they in fa#t adhered, they Bere +aking rhetori#al &se of instr&+ents of in#l&sion and e4#l&sion, a &se that Bas parasiti# &pon the e+phases of

offi#ialdo+.

'0ascists5' '$ogmatists7 and ')ro"etcu"tists'

Central to +any arg&+ents in !o+anian #&lt&ral politi#s &nder C#a&s#s#& Bere a##&sations and #o&nt#ra##&sations of dog+atis+ and prol#t#&ltis+ 0or neoprol#t#&ltis+2, so+eti+es a##o+panied by insin&ations of fas#is+. hat is, persons on one or another side stated that their opponents Bere res&s#itating the dog+ati# =ar4is+ of the early 1talinist period in !o+anian so#ialis+, Bith its v&lgar atte+pt to intr&de a @proletarian #&lt&re@ 0@prol#t#&ltis+@2 into !o% +ania-s #&lt&ral lifeL or they #lai+ed or insin&ated that the opponents Bere latter%day bearers of the fas#is+ of interBar !o+anian politi#s. Altho&gh all sides had re#o&rse to these ter+s, a##&sations of fas#is+ tended to #o+e +ore fro+ one side and a##&sations of dog+atis+ +ore fro+ their +ain adversaries. 3 Bill dis#&ss @fas#is+@ briefly first and @dog+atis+@ at greater length. An a##&sation of fas#is+ draBs its for#e fro+ one of the +aNor legiti+ations of !o+ania-s Co++&nist party, the part it played in overthroBing the pro%Hitler di#tator Antones#& in 1999 and in shifting !o+ania-s Barti+e allian#e fro+ the *aIis to the Allies. 3n the late 1995s and 19$5s, +&#h of #o++&nist poli#y toBard gro&ps and individ&als 0deportations, p&rges, i+prison+ents2 ste++ed fro+ their a#t&al or alleged ties Bith the interBar fas#ist right. Early !o+anian #o++&nis+ defined itself above all in opposition to fas#is+. Fiven this ba#kgro&nd, one sees hoB loaded Bere #harges s&#h as the folloBing, Bhi#h e4#oriated the Briter of so+e religio&sly tinted poe+s appearing in a p&bli#ation #alled hs Eeek 0see #hapter $2, he verses N&st <&oted do not #o+e fro+ .so+e Beek in the =iddle Ages, nor fro+ die Beeks of @glory@ of the Findirists. hey saB the light of print N&st last

19: =EA*1 D" CD*"L3C Beek in n&+ber $99 of he Eeek, over the signat&re ofCorn#li& (adi+ &dor and &nder the st&pefying title @1in#ere Poe+s.@ ... 3t is not the first ti+e that this sin#ere poet drinks fro+ the Bell of ana#hronisti# #on#eptions and of the vo#ab&lary of that spirit `d&h`X sad to re#all, that proselytiIed in earlier days 0L.B. 19862. he Bording of this atta#k openly links poet &dor Bith the Findirists, the &ltra% right%Bing interBar gro&p of *. Craini# 0see #hapter 12, Bhi#h pro+oted a !o+anian @spirit@ 0d&h^ based in Drthodo4y, ana#hronisti# by =ar4ist standards. hose Bho a##&sed opponents of fas#is+ rarely &sed the Bord @fas#ist@ itself b&t, as in this e4a+ple, #ontented the+selves Bith evoking its asso#iations/ by +entioning @Drthodo4is+,@ for instan#e, or the #olor green, Born by interBar fas#ists. Even +ore s&btle Bas referen#e to #&rrent disp&tes as a res&+ption of interBar arg&+ents betBeen @traditionalists@ and @+odernists.@ 1in#e everyone knoBs that +ost @traditionalists@ Bere linked Bith the right, #alling one-s adversary a @tradi%tionalist@ Bas tanta+o&nt to a #harge of fas#is+. Here is an e4a+ple, 3n the 19;5s, the Briters 3 have #alled traditionalists la&n#hed a very poBerf&l offensive. . . . Using as pole+i#al Beapons/in a dishonest b&t effe#tive Bay/ a raised tone, insin&ation, &ngro&nded a##&sation, and e4asperating insisten#e, the traditionalists do+inated the period in the sense that their h&+an presen#e bl&rred the literary presen#e of others and even of the+selves 0A. at#fanes#& 1981, 62. Behind this see+ingly bland des#ription, the a&thor has #onNoined his opponents Bith the fas#ist right, hoping thereby to dis<&alify the+ in the p&bli# eye. Altho&gh it +ight see+ that in a so#ialist regi+e #lai+ing legiti+a#y fro+ resistan#e to Hitler-s allies, to be a##&sed of fas#is+ Bo&ld be deadly, even Borse Bas to be a##&sed of prol#t#&ltis+ or dog+atis+. he reason, as e4plained in #hapter 7, is the sorry history of the s&ppression of national val&es &nder 1talin, e4perien#ed Bith pain by +any !o+anians atta#hed to the traditions and val&es of their #&lt&re. "or !o+anian intelle#t&als of all kinds, @dog+atis+@ and @prol#t#&ltis+@ evoked the rigid politi#al attit&de that deviated all #&lt&ral prod&#tion into #hannels entirely alien to +ost of #&lt&re-s prod&#ers and also to its p&bli#. Dver the period 19:$ to 1989, this sorry history and its effe#ts on politi#iIing national val&es Bere #onN&red &p Bith referen#es to @dog+atis+@ by persons having very different positions in the field of #&lt&ral prod&#tion. 3ts +eanings varied over that span as Bell. =EA*1 D" CD*"L3C 19; At their root, @dog+atist@ and @prol#t#&ltist@ Bere e&phe+is+s for foreign infl&en#e 0Fheorghi& 198;, :52 Bhether this be 1oviet or Bestern, altho&gh the notions originally referred to the 1oviet Union. hese ter+s have tBo possible +eanings, s&bservien#e to foreigners at the e4pense of one-s oBn val&es 0e.g., a##epting 1talin-s di#tates even tho&gh they Bere inN&rio&s to !o+anian #&lt&re2, and #onta+inating #&lt&ral #reation Bith politi#al #on#erns 0e.g., insisting on so#ialist realis+ even if the res&lt Bas bad art2. Altho&gh both Bere rooted in the politi#al intr&sion of 1oviet val&es into !o+anian

#&lt&re, the @foreign@ and @politi#al@ ele+ents grad&ally be#a+e separated. Both +eanings of the Bords +&st be kept in +ind if one is to &nderstand hoB people on opposite sides of an arg&+ent #o&ld &tiliIe identi#al ter+s, on one side they +eant @preferring international to national val&es@ and on die other side @#onta+inating #&lt&re Bith politi#s.@ 3n the #&lt&ral #ontests to be dis#&ssed in #hapters $ thro&gh ;, the persons Bho +ost often a##&sed others of @dog+atis+@ tended to be fro+ the gro&p for Bho+ it +eant preferring international over national val&esL as a res&lt, +y ill&strations #o+e fro+ that gro&p disproportionately. 3n the history of this rhetori#al Beapon, hoBever, persons of all kinds had re#o&rse to it, and in the 1985s the ene+ies of the above gro&p in#reasingly ret&rned their oBn a##&sations of @dog+atis+@ or @prol#t#&ltis+,@ deno&n#ing thereby their opponents- advo#a#y of an art #onta+inated by politi#s. A feB e4a+ples of these sorts of allegations Bill help to ill&strate. A literary historian asso#iated Bith the left sin#e i++ediately after the Bar re#alled the anti%B#st#rnis+ of those ti+es, #learly i+plying their ret&rn, @Let &s not forget that in the epo#h of prolet#&ltis+ all #onta#t Bas forbidden Bith the -de#adent D##ident.- 3n those days it Bas very easy to throB aro&nd the ter+ -#os+opolitanis+-@ Ua ter+ that had re#ently reappeared/k.v.S 0Croh+alni#ean&, in Ungh#an& 198$, 9:82. A philosopher des#ribed the #&lt&ral liberaliIation of the late 19:5s, Bith i+pli#it #riti#is+ of its reversal in the 19;5s and 1985s, as folloBs, U here o##&rredV a liberaliIation of tho&ght, an a##eptan#e of the fa#t that it is possible to think and to #reate #&lt&rally Bitho&t holding to dog+as .... UEN4iting fro+ the asphy4iation of dog+atis+ pres&pposed the redis#overy of the great so&r#es of #&lt&re, an opening toBard its &niversal and Bestern val&es 0Lii#ean& 1987, 6752. A so#iologist e4plained Bhy he fo&nd literat&re an appealing obNe#t of analysis, lining hi+self &p Bith the neB indig#nists and distan#ing hi+self fro+ so+e of his @=ar4ist@ #olleag&es in so#iology, @3n these #on% 198 =EA*1 D" CD*"L3C ditions in Bhi#h the so#ial s#ien#es have lagged behind the spirit of politi#s . . . and gen&fle#t to dog+atis+, literat&re has be#o+e the +ost faithf&l ideologi#al e4pression of the UenlightenedX neB politi#s@ 0=ih& 1987, 61$2. 3n the #onte4t of an arg&+ent in Bhi#h one literary historian obNe#ted to his adversary-s having defined @#lass@ in ethni# ter+s, the adversary reNoined, 3 tho&ght it Bas no longer reprehensible to speak abo&t ethni#ity, as it &sed to be ... d&ring the dog+ati# epo#h. 3s it an @ethni# obsession@ to talk abo&t !o % +anian spirit&ality, abo&t o&r origins and e4e+plary personalities . . . s&#h as E+ines#&, Hasde&, Parvan, lorga, andl Blaga ...K... Eill Be rea#h the point Bhen Be ar# asha+ed to be their des#endants and to be !o+anianK 01or#s#& 19862. 3n a dis#&ssion of !adio "ree E&rope, a No&rnalist hostile to it stated, W 3ts ta#ti#s W belong to the adaptable dog+ati# spirit. . . Uand itV learned a great deal fro+ the dog+atists of yesterday, Bith Bho+ in +any #ases they #ollaborate. . . . And noB, Bith the idea of establishing a @d#politi#i..#d@ literat&re, noB that the adepts of dog+atis+ have been Bholly #o+pro+ised, the !adio is seeking o&t Bhat Be +ight #all dog+atis+-s @+&te #onte+poraries.@ ... UAV biographi#al st&dy Bo&ld prove that the @dignity@ of

+any Bho #lai+ they never had any #onne#tion to dog+atis+ rests on hot air 01ilv#stri, in P&r#ar& 198:, 7:92 . his sa+e No&rnalist #larified the opposite of dog+atis+ th&s, @3n saying that Uhis oBn gro&p W is anti%dog+ati#, 3 Banted to e+phasiIe that it proposes the idea Xf&nda+ental val&esX in #ontrast to the #&lt&ral dire#tion of the 19$5s Ui.e., dog+atis+/k.v.V that Bas so frigid 0#on#erning the essen#e of the nation2@ 01ilv#stri 198:2. "inally, a literary #riti# disparaged the @leaders of aggressive prolet#&ltis+@ for their atta#h+ent to a #ertain earlier #riti#, Calin#s#&, of d&bio&s leftist #redentials and a #ertain politi#al opport&nis+, After having sBorn by Uearlier leftist #riti#s W Fher#a or 3brailean&, o&r @&p%to% date@ #riri#s have noB p&t their faith in F. Calines#&, a teat not la#king in de4% terity .... 3n the shelter ofCalines#&-s protean and se#&lariIed geni&s, the neo% dog+atists #an breathe easily 0Frig&r#n 19812. he persons Bho +ade the first, se#ond, and seventh of these #o++ents Bo&ld be loosely gro&ped in one #a+p Bholly opposed to those Bho +ade the fo&rth, fifth, and si4th 0the third o##&pies an ano+alo&s position2. his variety shoBs hoB #o+ple4 Bere the vehi#les for +&t&al re#ri+inations, Bhi#h +eant different things depending on the +o&ths fro+ Bhi#h they #a+e. =EA*1 D" CD*"L3C 199 Aside fro+ the tBo different +eanings of dog+atis+ and prolet#&ltis+ given above 0s&ppression of the national, and the intr&sion of politi#s2, the ter+s had tBo so+eBhat different &ses. he first Bas against persons a#tive in 1985s !o+anian literary life Bho had been instr&+ental in the earlier 1talinist s&ppression of national val&es. =ost of the+ Bere 0and in so+e #ases re+ained2 of gen&ine leftist senti+ent, and so+e Bere not @ethni# !o+anians@ 0i.e., they Bere of SeBish or H&ngarian origin2. Fiven the evol&tion of !o+anian politi#s, in the 1985s so+e of these @old 1tain%fists-@ Bere voi#es of liberalis+ and +oderation. *onetheless, opponents #o&ld seiIe &pon any opinion they offered as re#idivist, as res&s#itating the antinationalis+ of those early years. 1&#h &ses of @dog+atis+@ Bere addressed at spe#ifi# persons Bith spe#ifi# pasts. 1e#ond Bas the &se of @dog+atis+@ and @prolet#&ltis+@ not ad ho+ine+ b&t in referen#e to a general #li+ate in Bhi#h politi#al infl&en#e fro+ abroad overBhel+s the develop+ent of national #&lt&re. h&s, in the late 19:5s, so+e Briters deno&n#ed as @dog+atists@ those early 01oviet%serving2 1talinists Bho stood in the Bay of #&lt&ral liberaliIation, and in the 1985s these sa+e Briters Bere the+selves the obNe#ts of atta#k together Bith those early 1talinists, both being a##&sed of s&ppressing national val&es in preferen#e to fashions fro+ the Eest. he e4a+ples given above Bere +ere sniper-s shots fired at rando+ into the #roBd, in #o+parison Bith the heavy artillery that Bas also Bheeled o&t. o e4e+plify, here is part of an arti#le fro+ a #&lt&ral Beekly, &nder the signifi#ant heading @Points of !eferen#e for a 'iale#ti#al and Antidog+ati# Consideration of Literat&re and Art.@9 he a&thor #o+plains that dog+atis+ is on#e again +aking headlines in the #&lt&ral press, despite n&+ero&s prior dis+antlings of itL this ne#essitates in<&iry into Bhat prolet#&ltis+ and #&lt&ral dog+atis+ a##o+plish, in hopes of preventing yet another res&rgen#e of the+. "irst he reNe#ts the possibility that early proler#&ltist e4#esses +ay have res&lted fro+ the &npr#par#dn#ss and ine4perien#e of the first generation of leaders after 199;, and then he reveals their tr&e obNe#tive,

he +otor and N&stifi#ation of prol#t#&lris+ Bere neither blindness nor ine4% perien#e nor la#k of #&lt&re. he pri+ordial obNe#tives of #&lt&ral dog+atis+ Bere insistently to #o+pro+ise the national di+ension of o&r literat&re and arr and +ediodi#ally to heap bla+e &pon the+, and to &nder+ine the fo&ndations of !o+ania-s #&lniral essen#e. . . . Beyond any do&bt, the foreign +odel alBays lay #lose to the heart of tr&e prolef#&ltists, giving the+ #o&rage and hope. . . . he prol#t#&ltist advent&re Bas in fa#t a plot against the !o+anian spirit&al essen#e. *ot by #han#e, the affir+ation of prolet#&ltis+ and #&lt&ral dog% 1$5 =EA*1 D" CD*"L3C =EA*1 D" CD*"L3C 1$1 +atis+ Bas possible pre#isely in an &nfort&nate +o+ent Bhen die national senti+ent Bas p&rposely inhibited and in e#lipse. . . . Dn#e the !o+anian people, &nder the leadership of its Co++&nist party, regained its self% aBareness, #&lt&ral dog+atis+ Bas #o+pro+ised on the stage ot history. . . . W 'Vog+atists Bore any #lothing as long as it Bas foreignL they lined &p obediently &nder any flag as long as it Bas not o&r oBnL their #onfessed ai+ Bas and is the li<&idation of the histori#al roots of a&to#hthono&s #&lt&re. HoB else #an one e4plain the fa#t that opposition to r#editing the te4ts of =ihai E+ines#&, *. lorga, (asile Parvan, F. Calin#s#& and others #o+es e4a#tly fro+ the+, prepared as they are to lie doBn in front of a train if ne#essary to keep !o+anian Britings fro+ reappearingK 0Pelin 1987, 9, original e+phases2. Dne need go no f&rther than this <&otation to se# that a##&sations of dog+atis+ and prolet#&ltis+ Bere inti+ately involved Bith defining and defending national identity. Anyone #lai+ing to defend the tr&e val&es of !o+anian #&lt&re +ight a##&se ene+ies of the #ardinal sin against the *ation, ties to 1talinist dog+atis+, Bith its assa&lt on national #&lt&re. 0Chapter $ Bill shoB +ore #learly the organiIation of the #onfli#t fro+ Bhi#h the <&otation e+erged.2 Altho&gh this a##&sation is part of the #ontest over represen%tativen#ss and #ogniIant p&bli#s, as Bith the e4a+ple of @elitis+@ its ter+s involve an i+pli#it relation to =ar4is+ as Bell. he relation here, hoBever, is not 0as Bith elitis+2 to =ar4ist #on#ept&al #ategories b&t to the a#t&al instit&tionaliIation of =ar4is+ in !o+ania via the 1oviet ar+y, a histori#al e4perien#e that gave @dog+ati#@ 0foreign%i+posed2 =ar4is+ a de#idedly bad na+e. As a res&lt, talk of @dog+atis+@ #reated tBo =ar4is+s, a bad one and a good one, the dog+ati#, foreign one and an i+plied antidog+ati# indigeno&s one, Bhose task Bas to deno&n#e o&tside infl&en#e and serve !o+ania. he for+er is the =ar4% is+ of traitors and the latter that of patriots. Persons Bho deployed @dog+atis+@ in this Bay forged a bond linking prolet#&ltis+ or dog+ati# =ar4is+ Bith foreignness and the s&ppression of national val&es. Dthers, their opponents, &sed this rhetori#al Beapon in a different Bay, forging a bond a+ong 0n#o2prol#t#&ltis+.dog+atis+, the prostit&tion of gen&ine art before politi#s, and disservi#e to national val&es. Both gro&ps Bere Nointly a##o+plishing the sa+e res&lt, the #onstr&#tion of a link betBeen definitions of national val&es and for+s of =ar4is+. hey Bere indig#niIing =ar4is+ by +aking so+e of the N&dg+ents relevant to its history ine4tri#able fro+ defense of the *ation. 3n a Bord, the link Bas that in !o+ania, good =ar4ists ar# patriots. his is a long Bay fro+ =ar4-s observation that the proletariat has no #o&ntry. An additional e4tended e4a+ple Bill shoB hoB @dog+atis+@ #onstr&#ts this obNe#t/the =ar4ist patriot/alongside an indig#niIation of =ar4is+. he

e4a+ple shoBs ransylvanian so#iologist A#hi+ =ih&-- la&n#hing an atta#k on the @dog+atists@ Bho debilitated the #areer and s#holarly o&tp&t of !o+ania-s +ost gifted tBentieth%#ent&ry thinker and philosopher%poet, ransylvanian L&#ian Blaga 0see #hapter 12, thereby depriving !o+anian #&lt&re of so+e of its +ost pri#eless val&es. Altho&gh =ih&-s e4pressed obNe#t Bas the dog+atis+ of the 1995s and 19$5s, his atta#k Bas also/given its badly o&tdated target/ evidently on @dog+atists@ of the 1985s, Bho Bere never spe#ified. 3n an intervieB, =ih& defined dog+atis+ as any si+plisti# or sovi#tiI#d reading of the Borks of +aNor !o+anian #&lt&ral fig&res, s&#h as readings that dis+iss Blaga as a @philosophi#al idealist,@ and he a#knoBledged o&tright that Blaga is for hi+ a sy+bol of national val&es against dog+ati# =ar4is+ of this kind. =ih&, Bho at the ti+e had N&st be#o+e Party se#retary in his &niversity, defines th&s the =ar4is+ in Bhose na+e he atta#ks dog+atis+ and defends Blaga, 3n o&r opinion, the UproperV +ilitant spirit posits that in eval&ating an event or #reation Be +&st sit&ate o&rselves openly on die side of die interests of o&r nation and of its #ons#io&sness/in Bhi#h a de#isive pla#e is o##&pied by the val&es of &nity, independen#e, and national sovereignty. h&s &nderstood, this +ilitant spirit is #onsonant Bith the +ilitan#y of the Party, Bhi#h aspires to be the <&intessential and #ondensed e4pression of the interests and ne#essities of o&r Bhole nation and all its #itiIens 0=ih& 1988e, ;52.-3n other Bords, =ih& is &sing his atta#k on dog+atis+ to #onstr&#t a =ar4is+ that is national. Altho&gh he e4pressed this privately as a +ove toBard greater d#+o#ratiIation and i+prove+ents in the real%so#ialist order, his brand of national =ar4is+ #o&ld also be &sed to air #lai+s Be +ight per#eive as both @politi#ally #orre#t@ and #&lt&rally representative. =ih& begins his dis#&ssion Bith Blaga-s a##epting the #hair of philosophy at Cl&N University in 1978 and his see+ing reint#gration into the nor+al ro&nd of things after 199$. hen, in 1998, Blaga Bas dis+issed fro+ his post Bitho&t e4planation. HoB, =ih& asks, Bas this possible, given Blaga-s intelle#t&al stat&reK He ansBers that the fa&lt lies Bith @#ertain envies and professional a+bitions,@ rather than Bith the Bider politi#al #li+ate. =ih&-s s&spi#ions fall on one Pavel Apostol, Bho in 199$ Bas a fo&rth%year philosophy st&dent at the &niversity 0&nder the na+e of Pav#l Erdos, =ih& notes2 and in 1998 Bas na+ed 1$6 =EA*1 D" CD*"L3C professor of philosophy @in Blaga-s pla#e,@ having N&st #o+pleted his do#torate 01988\, 912. 3nitially a Blagan, Apostol noB be#a+e a =ar4ist and rapidly a#hieved a poBerf&l position in the politi#al life of Cl&N University. he rapidity of his #onversion to =ar4is+ leads =ih& to #on#l&de that a+bition drove hi+ to #a+paign for the o&ster of his for+er professor, Elaga, and his oBn installation in the latter-s pla#e. =ih& invites the reader to &nderstand that Blaga had to abandon his great philosophi#al syste+ oBing to personal a+bition on the part of a +an bearing a H&ngarian na+e 0Apostol Bas a SeB2. =ih& goes to #onsiderable lengths to disar+ the alternative interpretation, that Blaga lost his tea#hing post be#a&se his philosophi#al syste+ Bas too #losely aligned Bith that of the interBar right, +ortal ene+ies of the Co++&nist party, and be#a&se he Bas not #apable of shifting his intelle#t&al allegian#e to =ar4ist philosophy s&ffi#iently to be entr&sted Bith tea#hing it. A##ording to =ih&,

Blaga had established his distan#e fro+ the far right, and if he Bas repeatedly a##&sed of fas#is+ by #o++&nist a#tivists in Cl&N, the reason +&st be so&ght elseBhere than in Blaga-s a#t&al loyalties. =ih& finds the e4planation in the gross distortions of =ar4is+ that res&lted fro+ the #harged nationality sit&ation in *orthern ransylvania, folloBing the ret&rn of that region fro+ H&ngarian to !o+anian #ontrol in 1999. 3n essen#e, he arg&es that H&ngarian =ar4ists inside and o&tside !o+ania proposed a de#eptive and trea#hero&s @=ar4ist@ sol&tion to the nationalities proble+ in ransylvania, +aking the region a&tono+o&s. Ehen st&dents and !o+anian intelle#t&als s&#h as Blaga de+onstrated in opposition, these @=ar4ists@ a##&sed the+ of being @anti%=ar4ist@ and of obstr&#ting har+ony a+ong the% different nationalities. Be#a&se of Blaga-s stat&re, says =ih&, he Bas an espe#ially s&itable target for these H&ngarian #ha&vinist a##&sations in =ar4ist garb. =ih& #lai+s that in fa#t, hoBever, Blaga-s philosophi#al #onstr&#tion, Bhi#h pro+oted !o+anian spirit&ality and the #apa#ity of a re&nited !o+ania to bring +aNor #reative #ontrib&tions to the Borld, @Bas obvio&sly opposed not to an original =ar4is+ b&t to the%revisionist and a&tono+ist tenden#ies@ that Bo&ld deny ransylvania its rightf&l pla#e in !o+ania 01988fl, 982. "ro+ this =ih& #on#l&des that Blaga-s Briting #ontained no rea#tionary #ontent s&ffi#ient to N&stify his vilifi#ation as a fas#ist ene+y of the neB regi+e. *or, =ih& asserts, did Blaga engage in a#tivity #o&nter to tile neB dire#tions the #o++&nists pro+oted.; herefore, Be +&st seek to e4plain his e4#l&sion fro+ !o+ania-s #&lt&ral life not by his tho&ght or behavior b&t by so+ething else in the politi#s of the ti+e. =EA*1 DE CD*"L3C 1$7 his so+ething Bas a +istaken for+ of =ar4is+, na+ely the 1ta%linist% >hdanovist distortion that e<&ated a##eptan#e of its oBn dog+a Bith a positive =ar4ist attit&de. Blaga #o&ld not be e4pe#ted to fare Bell in an environ+ent per+eated by this @prol#t#&ltist@ &nderstanding of =ar4is+. he dog+ati# =ar4is+ of the 1995s and 19$5s did not even fit the #on#eption of =ar4 hi+self, Bho 0in =ih&-s vieB2 re#ogniIed and respe#ted tr&e val&es, Dnly in a red&#tionist for+ 0as 1talinist%>hdanovist dog+a2 #o&ld =ar4is+ be% #o+e the eval&ative grid f&r negating all Blaga-s +erits in philosophi#al #reation and branding hi+ a rea#tionary. =oreover, only in an i+perfe#t for+ #o&ld a politi#s originating in =ar4is+ transfor+ a theoreti#al and ideologi#al differen#e into gro&nds for ad+inistrative +eas&res Wi.e., e4p&lsionV 0=ih& 1988e, $12. his i+perfe#t =ar4is+ Bas then i+posed &pon Blaga &nder the @t&telage@ of dog+atists, s&#h as Apostol, in the neBly #onstit&ted philosophy depart+ent. "ro+ his lessons in the neB philosophy, it see+s, Blaga de#ided against f&rther philosophi#al Briting, th&s depriving !o+ania-s #&lt&ral patri+ony of the great a#hieve+ents that Bo&ld have res&lted. =ih&-s arg&+ent ends by observing that only the rela4ed #li+ate after 19:$ Wi.#., Cea&ses#&-s eraW per+itted !o+anian #&lt&re to give Blaga his d&e, b&t this #hange does not +ean that dog+atis+ has #eased to pose proble+s in #&lt&ral life. 3t +&st #ontin&e to be #o+batt#d. Bo things stand o&t in this a##o&nt. Perhaps the +ore striking is the potent national senti+ent at its base, the e4planation that a fa+o&s !o+anian intelle#t&al Bas bro&ght doBn by the personal envy and a+bitions of a

H&ngarian SeB in #on#ert Bith a si+plified and dog+atiIed =ar4is+ of 1oviet origin, f&rther distorted by the nationalist s#h#+%+gs of H&ngarian irredentists. he se#ond, less visible, is the &se of @dog+atis+@ to #onstr&#t tBo/indeed, three/=ar4is+s, 012 a dog+ati# @1talinist%>hdanovist@ one, i+ported &nder d&ress fro+ the 1oviet Union and Bholly &ns&it#d to !o+anian #onditionsL 062 an allied H&ngarian irredentist one,@ e<&ally dog+ati# b&t Bith different goals, territorially revisionist and anti%!o+anianL and 072 a ta#it b&t #learly i+plied @good@ !o+anian one, Bhose very !o+aniann#ss kept it tr&e to =ar4-s original intentions, &nlike the other tBo. his last =ar4is+ is evidently, =ih& see+s to say, the one noB p&rs&ed by the PartyL tar fro+ standing in the Bay of Blaga-s Bork, it Bo&ld #reate all the ne#essary #onditions for hi+ to prod&#e a brilliant philosophi#al synthesis that Bo&ld bring Borld #redit to !o+anian #&lt&re. 0 his prognosis 1$9 =EA*1 D" CD*"L3C sho&ld be borne in +ind in reading the fate of a #o+parable philosophi#al enterprise, #overed in #hapter ;.2 =ih&-s arg&+ent gives &s an e4#ellent e4a+ple of hoB a##&sations of @dog+atis+@ and its i+pli#ations for national val&es also served to in%dig#niIe the foreign i+port that Bas =ar4ist ideology. he @good@ =ar4is+ =ih& has #reated respe#ts a&thenti# national val&esL it #an be Brapped tightly aro&nd dis#&ssions of the *ation-s #hara#ter, interests, and #&lt&re. his @good@ =ar4is+ has little in #o++on Bith the foreign =ar4is+s Bith Bhi#h so+e +ight +istakenly identify it. 3t is a !o+anian prod&#t, s&ited to !o+anian #onditions, and a+ply &pheld by the !o+anian Co++&nist Party. 3t is =ar4is+ rendered a politi#al &se%val&e for a !o+anian politi#al apparat&s. =ih&-s atte+pt to @nationaliIe@ =ar4ist ideology did not go &nansBered, even tho&gh the ansBer Bas hidden. Altho&gh 3 en#o&ntered no p&blished reb&ttal of =ih&-s arg&+ent, a types#ript #ir#&lated &ndergro&nd that reNe#ted its #lai+s in very strong lang&age. 9 he a&thor, sin#e de#eased, Bas Blaga-s son% in%laB &dor B&gnari&, an old #o++&nist Bho Bas a#tive in the Party Bhen it Bas illegal and Bho adhered &ntil his death to an &nderstanding of =ar4is+ that pre#eded its in%stit&tionaliIarion in !o+ania. DbNe#ting to =ih&-s &se of his father%in%laB Blaga as the vehi#le for #ha&vinist personal den&n#iations of early #o++&nists, he also obNe#ts to =ih&-s red&#ing everything to s&bNe#tive +otivations of individ&als/a safe ta#ti#, he says, espe#ially Bhere those in <&estion are noB dead and #annot defend the+selves. A tr&ly so#io%logi#al a##o&nt, in B&gnari&-s vieB, +&st find the real #a&ses of dog+atis+, a#knoBledge the +istakes that Bere +ade, and ask Bhat +eas&res Bere ne#essary &nder the #ir#&+stan#es and Bhat Bere ab&sive. B&gnari&-s e4planation for Blaga-s losing his post is si+ple, the so#iety in Bhi#h he lived had #hanged beyond his #apa#ities to adapt, the =inistry of Ed&#ation had passed a de#ree reorganiIing the entire ed&#ational syste+ and eli+inating Blaga-s depart+ent altogether/a de#ree applied a#ross the board to +any persons of Blaga-s affiliations and not only to hi+/and Blaga-s ideas Bere, obNe#tively, &tterly irre#on#ilable Bith the tenets of =ar4is+. =oreover, it is not tr&e that he &ndertook no a#tivities against the neB order, he +aintained #onta#t Bith the #landestine rightist opposition, in hopes that A+eri#an troops Bo&ld overt&rn the #o++&nists and per+it the restoration of the stat&s <&o ante. Fiven this, there Bas no Bay that Blaga #o&ld have

#ontin&ed to tea#h in a so#ialist !o+ania. 3nstead of dis#&ssing the #li+ate in Bhi#h !o+anian #o++&nists +ight have fo&nd it ne#essary to da+ &p the philosophi#al #reativity of a talented thinker, B&gnari& #o+plains, =EA*1 D" CD*"L3C 1$$ =ih& prefers to air thinly veiled antise+iti# and anti%H&ngarian senti+ents and to anathe+atiIe individ&al persons. 3t is all too easy for =ih& to #ast aspersions on the patriotis+ of early #o++&nists, he had nothing to s&ffer for his so#ial origin, and he had s+elled no Bhiff of the gas #ha+bers to +ake hi+ vieB 1talin as a tr&e savior. B&gnari& #on#l&des by +&sing over hoB angry Co++&nist party 1e#retary =ih& is that Blaga Bas for#ed to footnote his last Britings Bith the na+es of =ar4, Engels, and +aNor !o+anian #o++&nist theoreti#ians. Altho&gh B&gnari&-s reply #ategori#ally reNe#ted =ih&-s analysis, it nonetheless f&rthered =ih&-s indigeniIation of =ar4is+, by offering a reNoinder, it engaged hi+ in an arg&+ent as to Bhether there really are three =ar4is+s, tBo bad 0the foreign ones2 and one good 0the !o+anian one2, and Bhether =ar4is+ is or is not to be Brapped aro&nd national <&estions. Any s&bse<&ent dis#&ssion Bo&ld debate hoB =ar4is+ is related to patrioti# senti+ent or is affe#ted by its national provenan#e. S&st as @dog+atists@ had be#o+e, for so+e people, not si+ply anyone Bho had parti#ipated in the original 1talinist version of =ar4ist ideology and #&lt&ral poli#y b&t anyone Bho tried to dis#&ss any topi# Bitho&t e4pli#itly introd&#ing nationality, @=ar4ists@ Bere be#o+ing defined by their adheren#e not si+ply 0if at all2 to the Britings of =ar4is+%Leninis+ b&t to the @+ilitant spirit@ that pla#es nationality first, as =ih& p&t it. @'og+atis+@ Bas an instr&+ent fashioned over fo&r de#ades and visibly +arked by its history. B&t Bhether the +eaning Bas pri+arily the #onta+ination of #&lt&re by the di#tates of politi#s or the s&ppression of national val&es in preferen#e to international ones, Bhat it +eant, in the end, Bas that so+e vieB Bas &nrepresentative of !o+anian val&es and interests 0#f. Fh#orghi& 198;, $72. o a##&se an opponent of @dog+atis+@ Bas to seek his eli+ination fro+ favor and fro+ the #o+petitive field. 3t Bas also to debilitate his a##ess to older #&lt&ral val&es seen as #onstit&ting the @national patri+ony@ or @heritage,@ notions liberally #alled &p as part of restoring the !o+anian past. As Bith #harges of @elitis+,@ a #harge of @dog+atis+@ signaled to the a&dien#e 0non%b&rea&#rati# as Bell as offi#ial2 that a prod&#er of #&lt&re Bas not to be tr&sted in his handling of national treas&res nor to be per+itted to a&g+ent his #lai+ to #&lt&ral a&thority by appropriating the+. o the degree that @dog+atis+@ Bas an effe#tive Beapon, Bhat +ade it so Bas, of #o&rse, the do&ble =ar4is+ b&ried Bithin it, a @bad@ 1oviet orthodo4y of 1talinist parentage, and an &narti#&lat#d @good@ =ar4is+ that Bas !o+anian and that sat in the halls of poBer dis% 1$: =EA*1 D" CD*"L3C p#nsing s&pport for #&lt&re. =any of the inve#tives that e+ployed dog+atis+ parti#ipated, then, in an indig#niIation of =ar4is+, #onstr&#ting a =ar4is+ #leansed of its foreign infl&en#es and pres&+ably Bell%disposed toBard native #&lt&ral prod&#ts. Altho&gh for the great +aNority of !o+anian intelle#t&als this =ar4is+ Bas an obNe#t of s#he+ing rather than of loyalty, it began to have &ne4pe#ted s&pporters as the Bave of #ha&vinis+ b&ilt to e4#essive

proportions. 03t is said, for e4a+ple, that in the late 19;5s so+e non%Party historians fended off an atte+pt to @da#iani4#@ the neBly #o++issioned reatise on !o+anian history Use# #hapter :V, by arg&ing that the Bork +&st be g&ided by the%s#ientifi# prin#iples of =ar4is+.2 3ndigeniIation via @dog+atis+@ or @elitis+@ Bas #r&de, in that it did not engage the analyti# #ategories of =ar4-s diale#ti#al +aterialis+ in a s&stained #riti<&e. here Bere, hoBever, a feB !o+anian intelle#t&als Bho, Bith greater or lesser serio&sness,15 took on this +ore diffi#&lt task, #riti#iIing =ar4ist theory for its fail&re to #o+prehend national pheno+ena and for its Bholly inade<&ate treat+ent of the+. 1&#h s#holars asked, HoB #an one i+prove &pon =ar4-s obvio&sly defe#tive analysis of national <&estionsK Ehat pla#e o&ght ethni#ity to have in a so#ial analysisK 3s it ne#essarily no +ore than a for+ of @false #ons#io&sness,@ or do#s it have an independent analyti# stat&s, and if so, BhatK o address this <&estion Bas also a for+ of indig#niIing =ar4is+, b&t it de+anded +&#h +ore intelle#t&al Bork than +ost of those Bho invoked @dog+atis+@ Bere prepared to &ndertake. Altho&gh 3 Bill not ill&strate an arg&+ent of that sort in its oBn ter+s, 3 reveal parts of one indire#tly in the folloBing se#tion, in Bhi#h 3 #onsider another te#hni<&e e+ployed in #ontests a+ong !o+anian #&lt&ral prod&#ers. his is the te#hni<&e of genealogi#al appropriation, Bhereby past heroes of !o+anian #&lt&re Bere bro&ght over onto one side in a #onte+porary arg&+ent by ins#ribing the+ Bithin the lineage that side #lai+ed as its oBn. =ih&-s defense appropriated Blaga i+pli#itlyL the folloBing e4a+ple is +&#h +ore overt.

*enea"ogica" +ppropriations8 /minescu as )roto9Mar:ist

An e4#ellent instan#e of genealogi#al appropriation as an #le+ent in #&lt&ral str&ggles is to be fo&nd in a re+arkable and dist&rbing book p&blished in 1989, so#iologist 3li# Bad#s#&-s E&ropean 1yn% =EA*1 D" CD*"L3C 1$; #hronis+ and !o+anian Criti#al C&lt&re. his is a very #hallenging Bork of a+bitio&s s#ope and theoreti#al brillian#e, based on a sophisti#ated knoBledge of =ar4 and on a prodigio&s reading of Bestern so#ial s#ien#e, both #lassi#al and #onte+porary. !eading it fills one Bith 0a+ong other senti+ents2 ad+iration for the a&thor-s ingen&ity and the breadth of his thinking.@ his #o+ple4 book deserves a +ore e4tended and integral treat+ent than 3 #an give it here.16 Bades#&-s book has a triple agenda, 17 of Bhi#h the third is the +ost i+portant for +y present p&rposes. "irst, he atte+pts to revise =ar4ist theory by inserting the #on#ept of the *ation into the heart of a #lass analysis. 1e#ond, he offers a n#o%=ar4ist interpretation of !o+ania-s history of e#ono+i# and politi#al &nd#rd#velop+ent, and altho&gh he &ses ter+s like @p#riph#raliIation@ +ade fashionable by dependen#y theorists and by 3++an&el Eall#rst#in-s Borld%syste+ theory, he gives his oBn original reading of these notions. hird, and +ost i+portant for +y obNe#tives, his book is an e4pli#it atte+pt to +ake fa+o&s !o+anian poet and gaI#t##r =ihai E+ines#& 018$5/18892 the forer&nner of this kind of radi#al so#ial%histori#al theoriIing. 3n this respe#t, Bades#& offers a for+ of arg&+ent that is indig#nist, - 9 it #redits a !o+anian thinker Bith having original ideas different fro+ those of other early #riti#s of +etropolitan #apitalis+, s&#h as )arl =ar4 and "riedri#h List, and prior to

#o+parable ideas that e+erged later in Latin A+eri#a and in Bestern leftist so#iology in the 19;5s. Bad#s#&-s Bork repro#esses so+eone #learly identified Bith the traditional right into a pres#ient spokes+an of the left, and it does so in an overtly indig#nist +anner. Altho&gh Bad#s#&-s indig#nis+ links his Bork Bith parts of +y dis#&ssion in #hapters 1 and $, 3 e+phasiIe these ti#s less than his valiant atte+pt to +ake E+ines#& a radi#al so#iologist, f&lly Borthy of in#l&sion a+ong the pre#&rsors of !o+anian =ar4ist tho&ght/that is, his genealogi#al appropriation of E+ines#& for =ar4is+ and for so#iology. Bades#&-s reinterpr#tation of E+ines#& as radi#al theorist is not an easy a##o+plish+ent, both !o+anians and o&tsiders have &n#<&ivo%#ally vieBed the poet as a stalBart of the =oldavian Conservative party, the party of a landed aristo#ra#y not noted for its progressive ideas. Eidely regarded by !o+anians as their greatest poet, E+ines#& has nonetheless been #lassed as 4enophobi#, #ha&vinist, antis#+iti#, 1$ anti%!&ssian, and an e4e+plar of !o+anti# agrarian rea#tion, <&alities that had #a&sed +ost of his Britings to be pros#ribed for a n&+ber of years. 1: Ehen E+ines#&-s #orp&s Bas grad&ally alloBed ba#k in, it Bas by presenting hi+ as the #ha+pion of the Bret#hed/ that is, by &sing 1$8 =EA*1 D" CD*"L3C a #lass analysis to des#ribe the #onte4t of his Bork and then per+itting hi+ to raise his voi#e on behalf of the oppressed, as befits a so#ialist #&lt&re%hero. 1hafir 01987e, 66$%66:2 sees this as an e4ternally gro&nded reintrod&#tion of E+ines#&, an e4terior version of =ar4is+ Bas the basis for r##val&ating the poet-s Bork, +aking it a##eptable by bringing o&t his so#ial #on#erns. he people Bho a##o+plished this reto&#hing Bere old%style orthodo4 #o++&nists. Bades#& has set hi+self the +ore #o+pli#ated task of legiti+ating E+ines#& internally, Bithin a gen&ine lo#al so#ialist tradition seen as having its oBn priorities and analyti# innovations. =y obNe#tive here is not to assess the pla&sibility of Bades#&-s treat+ent of E+ines#& b&t to des#ribe Bhat 3 se# as the prin#ipal +oves he +akes in his arg&+ent. 3 a+ not, in any event, #apable of assessing the arg&+ent-s pla&sibility, sin#e 3 have read little of E+ines#&-s poetry or politi#al and e#ono+i# Britings, and one Bo&ld have to have read the+ all in order to render N&dg+ent on this +atter. 1; =oreover, 3 do not regard s&#h N&dg+ent as essential to +y p&rposes, E+ines#& Bas a real and highly infl&ential histori#al personage Bho e+itted Britten prod&#ts that have noB entered into a pro#ess of readings and r#r#adings. he vario&s readings and reb&ttals for+ their oBn kind of so#ial a#tion and ill&+inate the nat&re of !o+anian so#iety regardless of their @#orre#tness.@ E+ines#& and his Bork have be#o+e a sy+bol, having a pl&rality of +eanings and deployed in politi#al str&ggles that have little to do Bith Bhat he +ay @really@ have +eant. he point of the present dis#&ssion is to se# Bhat potential &ses his +&ltiple +eanings ar# being p&t to, Bhat kind of a&thority they ar# serving, and Bhat pro#esses of #&lt&ral str&ggle they ill&strate/in a Bord, to dis#&ss the #&lt&ral politi#s in Bhi#h E+ines#& be#a+e e+broiled a #ent&ry after his death. Bades#& initiates his reint#rpretation of !o+anian history and his genealogi#al appropriation of E+ines#& Bith several #riti<&es of e4isting =ar4ist interpretations. hese red&#e to the folloBing f&nda+ental post&lates, 012 Altho&gh in the Eest i+perial strivings Bere #he#ked by bo&rgeois revol&tions,

in Eastern E&rope this Bas a#hieved by +ove+ents of nationalities. hat is, nation takes pre#eden#e over #lass in analyses of East E&ropean history, @3t Bas pre#isely the national revol&tions in so&theast E&rope that provided the histori#al fra+eBork for the fall of e+pires in this Ione, s&#h that the tr&e revol&tionary for#es in this #ase Bere nations@ 0Bades#& `919b, 1$2. "or Bades#&, the ethni# and national #o+position of the r&ling #lasses provides the basis of !o+anian history. 062 Peasants in this part of the Borld Bere a revol&tion% =EA*1 D" CD*"L3C 1$9 ary and progressive for#e. *ot for !o+anians, =ar4-s fa+o&s @sa#ks%of% potatoes@ arg&+ent abo&t peasants in "ran#eA 072 1o#iology sho&ld not pla#e the history of do+inant poBers at the #enter of every analysis. o do so is to +isapprehend the so#ial for#es that +ake history in the @peripheries,@ Bhi#h are not ade<&ately e4plained by @+etropolitan@ theories. Bades#&-s #on#l&sion fro+ these post&lates is that =ar4 +ay have given the best e4isting interpretation of +etropolitan #apitalis+, b&t his analysis is inade<&ate for peripheral areas into Bhi#h #apital s&bse<&ently penetrated. o &nderstand these pro#esses, he #lai+s, Be +&st t&rn to !o+anian thinkers, E+ines#& first a+ong the+, Bho theoriIed the pheno+enon of peripheral #apitalis+ Bell before Latin A+eri#an and other theorists after 1995. hese !o+anian thinkers ad+irably &phold =ar4-s histori#al +aterialist #on#eption Bhile avoiding @dog% +ati#@ absol&tiIation of his theory 0ibid., 78%792. 3n e4tra#ting fro+ E+ines#&-s Britings a #oherent so#iology for Bhi#h he Bill #lai+ +aterialist stat&s, Bades#& is at pains to disable the Bidely held vieB that E+ines#&-s Britings Bere 4enophobi#. Potential 4enophobia is +ost evident in E+ines#&-s theory of @s&peri+posed strata,@ Bhi#h Bades#& #alls @one of the +ost i+portant #ontrib&tions of !o+anian so#iologi#al tho&ght in +odern ti+es@ 0p. 6$92. his theory des#ribes the a#tivities of foreign elites that siphoned the s&rpl&s prod&#t fro+ the #o&ntry and sent it abroad in spe#&lation and l&4&ry p&r#hases, as opposed to @fi4ing@ it lo#ally to develop lo#al so&r#es of Bealth. Adopting E+ines#&-s ter+s, Bades#& refers to this strat&+ as a 4eno#ra#y 0a regi+e that serves foreign interests Upp. 6;9%685V2, Bhi#h adopted an attit&de of predation to the so#iety they lived in and s&b% Ne#ted it r&ino&sly to Bestern +etropolitan #enters. he idea of @4eno#ra#y@ in E+ines#&-s Britings, Bades#& insists, is a Bholly so#iologi#al and not, as has been #harged, a 4enophobi# or #ha&vinist one 0ibid.2. 03t is never #larified in this arg&+ent hoB one is to knoB a @foreign@ r&ler fro+ a @!o+anian@ one, given that so+e p&re !o+anian na+es are asso#iated Bith so+e of the +ost predatory and devastating relations to !o+anian so#iety Uany n&+ber of noble and r&ling fa+ilies of the past several #ent&ries, not to +ention the Cea&s#s#& fa+ilyV and so+e @foreign@ na+es U!osetti, Canta#&Iino, GenopolV Bith a#ts of lo#al benefit. he +ore one reads of Bades#&-s E+ines#&, the +ore it see+s that everything evil/de+agogy, tearing doBn of histori#al traditions, +isery of the people/is the fa&lt of i++igrant foreigners Bhereas a&to#hthones ar# asso#iated Bith only Bhat is good Use#, e.g., 1:5 =EA*1 D" CD*"L3C pp. 6$8%6$9V. Ehoever a#ted in the interests of the !o+anian people Bas

@!o+anian@ and Bhoever did not Bas @foreign,@ regardless of their a#t&al national origin. hat is, anyone not fi4ing #apital lo#ally is a foreigner by definition. Altho&gh Bades#& #ontin&es to insist that this theory is not ethno#entri#, it is the +&rky sBa+p at the botto+ of this slippery slope that fills one Bith +isgivings as to Bhere he is &lti+ately headed.2 3n the re+ainder of his dis#&ssion, Bades#& #atalogs the #ontrib&tion of !o+anian so#iology, and above all of E+ines#&, to &nderstanding the effe#ts of #apitalist penetration into Eastern E&rope. He #alls E+ines#& the first thinker of any nationality to disting&ish betBeen #apital-s +anner of operation in the +etropolis and in the periphery 0p. 68;2. E+ines#&-s &nderstanding of these proble+s enabled hi+ to see that the @laB of s&rvival of the fittest@ did not hold in the peripheries, Bhere Bhat s&rvives is not the positive ele+ents b&t the negative ones. h&s, the for+ of #lass str&ggle differs in the periphery fro+ its for+ in the #ore, in peripheries this str&ggle takes the for+ of a str&ggle for the biologi#al and #&lt&ral s&rvival of a people e4ploited fro+ Bitho&t and fro+ above 0pp. 68;/6882. Bades#& vieBs E+ines#&-s theory as not a !o+anti# ret&rn to an agrarian idyll b&t a de+and for a nond#p#nd#nt develop+ent of #apitalis+, #o+parable to the path folloBed in the Eest, and he sees the poet-s theories as offering an alternative ideology to that of bo&rgeois liberalis+. Ee #an, therefore, #onsider that E+ines#& is the adept of a so#iology of +aterialist #on#eption. . . . he theory of -the separation of-a negative diale#ti#, fro+ a posi%tive diale#ti# in spatial%geographi# fra+eBorks is, to o&r knoBledge, a Borld pre+iere. . . . E+ines#&-s #on#eption of the histori#al be#o+ing of peoples and #&lt&res is in#o+patible Bith the flat and abstra#t vision of a &nilinear evol&tionis+ Ui.e., Bith 1talinis+/k.v.V. ... As a so#iologist of +e forBard +ove+ent toBard #iviliIation, his tho&ght #on#erns, pre#isely, die paths of histori#al progress Uand not a !o+anti# ret&rn to the pastV 0Bades#& 1989X, 711, original e+phasis2. Let +e re#apit&late the #lai+s Bades#& is +aking for his hero. E+ines#& is the !o+anian =ar4, Bho offered the first theories of peripheral #apitalis+. He is the @father@ of all s&bse<&ent +aterialist tho&ght in !o+ania 0p. 67$2. Altho&gh +ost of =ar4-s Britings +ay have pre#eded his te+porally, his ar# of e<&al val&e s#i#ntifi#ally, if not indeed of s&perior val&e fro+ a !o+anian point of vieB. He is also the fo&nder of !o+anian so#iology 0p. 6982. 3n fa#t, he is the father of all !o+anian so#ial tho&ght of any kind, regardless of dis#ipline, his so#iology =EA*1 D" CD*"L3C 1:1 represents the +o+ent fro+ Bhi#h depart all the lines, all the dire#tions of +odern !o+anian tho&ght, irrespe#tive of their n&an#es and interpretations@ 0pp. 67$%67:, original e+phasis2. Eords like @fo&nder@ and @first@ peppered thro&gho&t Bad#s#&-s book +ake this a genealogi#al appropriation of a spe#ial kind, E+ines#& has been +ade not N&st any old an#estor b&t the api#al an#estor, the point of origin, the genitor. And as if this Beren-t eno&gh, he is the for+&lator of a theory of &nder%develop+ent that Bo&ld later stand at the #ore of the Bestern so#iology of Borld a##&+&lation 0p. 6962L he is @a+ong the pre#&rsors of the neB epist#+ologi#al orientation in E&ropean so#iology and #&l%t&rology@ 0Bades#& 1989\, 62. His intelle#t&al paternity th&s floBs beyond the bo&nds of !o+ania to fr&#tify so#ial tho&ght aro&nd the Borld.

3t is i+portant to #larify Bhat these #lai+s a##o+plish. "irst, a +an Bho has been regarded as i+portant #hiefly for his !o+anti# poetry has been +ade the first !o+anian e4ponent of radi#al #riti#al theory. his is far +ore than si+ply to&ting E+ines#& as a #ha+pion of the Bret#hed and, therefore, as #o+patible Bith so#ialis+. He has been e4propriated fro+ nineteenth%#ent&ry !o+anti# literat&re and revaloriIed, in the +ost literal sense, into a so&r#e of sy+boli# a##&+&lations of an ideologi#al sort proper to a spe#ifi#ally !o+anian =ar4is+. ogether Bith Bad#s#&-s insisten#e on the f&nda+ental signifi#an#e of the role of nationality in so#iologi#al e4planation and his other #on#ept&al innovations, this arg&+ent revises =ar4is+ s&bstantially. 3t entails reading =ar4 #losely and s&ggesting ne#essary +odifi#ations of his Bork, +odifi#ations that !o+anian thinkers of =ar4-s day/E+ines#&/Bere offering, Bades#& affir+s, Bitho&t d&e re#ognition. 3t also serves, hoBever, the #reation of a @good@ =ar4is+, a !o+anian one, to oppose the @bad@ one of dog+atises, prol#t#&ltists, 1talinists, and irredentists. Dn#e again, then, Be se# a for+ of arg&+ent that a##&+&lates intelle#t&al &se%val&es for the politi#al apparat&s, by spe#ifi#ally #o+bining an interpretation of =ar4ist and neo%=ar4ist #on#epts Bith a fo#&s on national proble+s. Alongside this rehabilitation of E+ines#& and #reation of a lo#aliIed =ar4is+, a se#ond noteBorthy pro#ess is taking pla#e. 3t is signifi#ant that Bades#& +akes E+ines#& not N&st a =ar4ist b&t also a so#iologist, for the environ+ent of Bades#&-s effort Bas one in Bhi#h so#iology itself had been al+ost Bholly s&ppressed. As one of the +ost bo&rgeois of the bo&rgeois s#ien#es, so#iology had an &neven #areer in so#ialist !o+ania. 3t Bas initially banned o&tright, along Bith all philosophies b&t 1:6 =EA*1 D" CD*"L3C diale#ti#al +aterialis+. '&ring the 19:5s so#iology Bas res&rre#ted, its pra#titioners e+erging fro+ the shadoBs of philosophy instit&tes and depart+ents and told to find o&t Bhat Bas really going on in !o+ania-s @+&ltilat#rally developing so#iety,@ thro&gh resear#h into agri#&lt&ral #olle#tiviIation, so#ial +obility, the for+ation of attit&des a+ong yo&th, the operation of the +ass +edia, and so on. As of the late 19;5s, the dis#ipline Bas on#e again #ast into the shade, depart+ents &ndone and do#torates denied, as the res&lts of its resear#h had shoBn all too Bell Bhat Bas happening in the @+&ltilaterally developing so#iety.@ 1o#iologists responded to this re%p#ripheraliIation of so#iology by #ons#io&sly or &n#ons#io&sly defending their dis#ipline and trying to ally it Bith other poBerf&l #&rrents or fields, s&#h as literat&re18 or history.19 Bades#&-s response to the p#ripheraliIation of his dis#ipline Bas both to Noin it to history and to adapt a neB indig#nis+, Bith all its benefits 0see ne4t #hapter2, fro+ literat&re into so#iologi#al theoriIing. He also pla#ed hi+self Bithin the line of leftist thinkers, fro+ =ar4 on doBnL b&t his E+ines#&%first indigenis+ de+onstrates #learly that in C#a&%ses#&-s !o+ania, it Bas no longer s&ffi#ient for so#iology to N&stify itself by offering =ar4ist analyses.6@ o #lai+ the attention of !o+ania-s leadership and of those Bho allo#ated its goods, so#iology had to be not +erely =ar4ist b&t national, tied to indisp&table national val&es. Bades#&-s genealogi#al appropriation of E+ines#& Bas th&s dire#tly tied to the fate of so#iology, it shoBs &s hoB an indig#niIation of =ar4is+ #o&ld be#o+e Noined to <&estions of #&lt&ral

r#presentativ#n#ss, N&stifying a so#iology that treated proble+s of the *ation in a =ar4ist +anner and did so in the lineage of the greatest of all national fig&res, poet =ihai E+ines#&. his dis#&ssion of Bades#& is, 3 +&st e+phasiIe, highly sele#tive. 3 have &nders#ored the part of his arg&+ent that shoBs the te#hni<&e ot genealogi#al appropriation, at the e4pense of the history of !o+anian &nd#rdevelop+#nt that Bo&ld see+ the book-s #hief b&rden. 3 Bo&ld nonetheless defend this sele#tion, hoBever, on the basis of revieBs of the book. Altho&gh a feB #o++entators ad+ired his @anti%dog+ati# +aterialis+@ and @e4e+plary &se of diale#ti#s@ 0L&#eafar&l 1989, 9L =ih& 1988Y, 66$, 66;2, Bhat #a&ght the attention of his ad+irers 0se# L&#eafdr&l 1989L !iIa 198$2, his detra#tors 0Catin#an& 198$L =an%oles#& 19892, and those Bith +i4ed feelings 0=ih& 1988Y2 Bas his genealogi#al to&r% de%for## Bith E+ines#&, Bhi#h all of the+ saB as the heart of the book. =EA*1 D" CD*"L3C 1:7 he tBo +ost i+portant revieBs, indeed, ref&sed the genealogy Bades#& had #reated. Literary #riti# =anoles#&/by no +eans an orthodo4 =ar4ist/savaged the book and ridi#&led its pretensions, *o one else has #lai+ed e<&ivalen#e for the histori#al roles played by =ar4% is+ . . . and e+ines#ianis+ . . . and it see+s to +e fro+ all points of vieB e4orbitant. Eitho&t Banting to di+inish so+ehoB d&e i+portan#e of the poet-s so#iology, to p&t it on the sa+e ideational level Bith =ar4is+ is &ns&stainable by rational arg&+ent. . . . Affir+ations s&#h as these see+ to +e o&t of keeping Bith the ele+entary tr&th that E+ines#& Bas not a histori#al% +aterialist so#iologist, Bhi#h do#s not +ean that his so#iology has no +erits or la#ks theoreti#al validity. B&t 3 ask to Bhat &se his #hange in stat&s is being p&t 0=anoles#& 19892. !egarding as politi#al pa+phlets +&#h of Bhat Bades#& vieBed as s#ientifi# so#iology, =anoles#& denied E+ines#& a #oherent so#iologi#al syste+ and fo&nd there only the pen of a gifted No&rnalistL he #risply ref&sed E+ines#& the label of @histori#al +aterialist,@ preferring hi+ in the +ore fa+iliar role of politi#al #onservative. =anol#s#&-s genealogy for !o+anian so#iology and !o+anian +aterialis+ differs fro+ Bades#&-s, it r&ns thro&gh the so#ialist Fh#rea, as Bell as vario&s interBar =ar4ist so#iologists and the interBar liberals >#l#tin and Lovin#s#&, Bho+ Bades#& atta#ks. 3n s&ggesting this #o&nt#rg#n#alogy, literary #riti# =anoles#& Bas ai+ing not for his oBn position in a different lineage of +aterialis+ or so#iology b&t, rather, to ref&se Bades#& the right to #lai+ hi+self Nointly a +aterialist so#iologist and heir to the greatest hero of !o+anian letters. 1ho&ld s&#h a #lai+ be a##epted, it Bo&ld +ake Bades#& and his asso#iates absol&tely invin#ible #o+petitors in the str&ggle for attention fro+ a !o+anian b&rea&#ra#y. Eviden#e that Bades#& too saB as #r&#ial his #o+bined #lai+s for +aterialis+ and so#iology as #+in#s#ian is the first senten#e of his reb&ttal to =anol#s#&-s revieB, @Eas *i#olae =anoles#& listening to the voi#e of his vo#ation Bhen he entered &pon a terrain totally foreign to hi+, so#iology and =ar4is+K@ 0Bades#& 1989\2. Lo&dly #lai+ing both so#iology and =ar4is+ for hi+self, he a##&sed =anoles#& of theoreti#al #onf&sion and of +oving the dis#&ssion fro+ so#iology to politi#al ideology. Bades#&-s reply +ade it plain that aside fro+ the proper pla#e of E+ines#& in the lineages of !o+anian tho&ght, a +aNor iss&e

Bas Bho #an speak for =ar4is+, and hoB so#iology-s #ontrib&tion to it and to !o+anian #&lt&re is to be assessed. A different #ontestation of Bades#&-s genealogy for E+ines#& #a+e 1:9 =EA*1 D" CD*"L3C fro+ so#iologist =ih&, in a revieB Britten tBo years before the arti#les on Blaga dis#&ssed above. =ih& Bas so+eBhat readier than =anol#s#& to a##ept the idea that there is a to&#h of +aterialis+ in E+ines#&-s Britings, and ready indeed to a##ept E+ines#& as a so#iologist/Bhi#h Bo&ld give a big lift to =ih&-s dis#ipline 0N&st as this revisionist genealogy Bo&ld orphan =anoles#&-s line of literati2. =ih&-s opening paragraph appla&ded Bad#s#& for doing @a servi#e to the affir+ation of today-s !o+anian so#iology,@ and he later stated o&tright, @Eitho&t hesitation, Be #an agree Bith the idea . . . that there is a #lose and not at all peripheral link betBeen =. E+ines#&-s so#ial%politi#al tho&ght and so#iology@ 0=ih& 1988Y, 66$, 67:2. Additionally, he #ongrat&lated Bad#s#& for having the #o&rage to break o&t of @dog+ati#@ =ar4ist #ategories. !&t =ih& Bas not prepared to a#knoBledge the paternity of E+ines#& &nreservedly, see+ing to prefer a +ore #ollateral relation. He Bas rel&#tant to a##ept Bades#&-s transfig&ration of E+ines#& fro+ #onservative to radi#al 0=ih& 1988Y, 678, 69;2 and Bas skepti#al of !ad#s#&-s vieB that E+ines#& Bas not 4enophobi# 0p. 67;2. =ost of all, =ih& Bas p&t off by Bades#&-s #lai+s that E+ines#& Bas the first so#iologist for !o+anians, the api#al an#estor, the fo&nder. Food ransylvanian that he is, =ih& saB his oBn so#iologi#al an#estry as longer and as rooted not in !o+ania b&t in "ran#e, o#<&eville, Co+t#, and so forth 0pp. 67:%6962. He so&ght to insert E+ines#& into that +ore E&ropean line, a line that Bo&ld in#l&de =ar4 Bitho&t +aking E+ines#& his s&perior 0pp. 677/6792. 3n short, =ih& ref&sed Bades#&-s indigenist #lai+s for E+ines#& and the indigeniIation of =ar4is+ for Bhi#h Bades#& Bas &sing hi+. =ih& arg&ed this by saying that sin#e so#iology is older than E+ines#&, if E+ines#& is a so#iologist then he #annot be the first oneL Be #an speak only of his pla#e in @an a##&+&lation 0a te+poral s&##ession2 along the #o&rse of its develop+ent@ 0p.6962. his +ay see+ a +inor #avil on =ih&-s part, b&t in +y vieB it is #r&#ial. Ehat =ih& Bas denying Bad#s#& Bas the right to appropriate all the gains of !o+anian so#ial tho&ght toBards his oBn ends, all too #losely linked Bith the ai+s of the C#a&ses#& regi+e. By +aking E+ines#& not an api#al an#estor of a lo#al 0if +aNor2 #lan b&t +erely a +e+ber of the larger @tribe@ of E&ropean so#iology, =ih& Bas insisting that so#iology has its oBn sy+boli# a##&+&lations independent ot the *ation, a##&+&lations rooted in a dis#iplinary past that #annot be e4propriated at Bill.61 Altho&gh =ih& Bas soon to throB in his lot Bith the politi#ally a+bitio&s, as of 1989 0Bhen he Brote his revieB2 he had not =EA*1 D" CD*"L3C 1:$ abandoned his aspiration to intelle#t&al re#ognition resting on #&lt&ral and dis#iplinary a&thority, independent of politi#s. he te#hni<&e of genealogi#al appropriation Bas Bidely pra#ti#ed in !o+anian #&lt&ral politi#s 0and Bill do&btless #ontin&e to be, as it is in other #o&ntries2, as persons fro+ one or another @#a+p@ so&ght to in#orporate vario&s past fig&res into the line in Bhi#h they in#l&ded the+selves. 1o+eti+es these

appropriations Bere #o+bined, as in Bades#&-s #ase, Bith indig#niIations of =ar4is+, the insertion of =ar4ist lang&age and theoreti#al #lai+s into a dis#o&rse in Bhi#h the *ation had priority. An e4#ellent e4a+ple fro+ a politi#al position dia+etri#ally opposed to his is a book by one%ti+e 1talinist 3leana (ran##a 019;$2, Bho +ade a #ase for in#l&ding literary #riti# Lovin#s#& in the line of !o+anian =ar4ist tho&ght. Dther instan#es laid no #lai+ to a =ar4ist heritage b&t +erely #onstr&#ted lineages #onvenient for the sorts of #lai+s a s#holar or Briter Banted to air. Philosopher Blaga, for e4a+ple, Bho+ no one Bo&ld try to ins#ribe in a =ar4ist lineage, Bas the obNe#t of atte+pted appropriations fro+ opposing sides, as so+e #lai+ed hi+ for indigenis+ and others for E&ropeanis+, so as to present the+selves as his defenders and, thro&gh hi+, as defenders of !o+anian #&lt&ral val&es. All Bho engaged in s&#h a#tions, a#ross the Bhole spe#tr&+ of intelle#t&al politi#s, shared a single la#ti#, they +ade available to the+selves the pen&+bra of +eanings asso#iated Bith past fig&res of +aNor #&lt&ral signifi#an#e. o the e4tent that a##o+plishing this involved +oves that also indig#niI#d =ar4is+, they parti#ipated Nointly in +aking notions derived fro+ offi#ial =ar4is+ neB #over ter+s for national iss&es, ter+s that entered into the e4p&lsions and the str&ggles for #&lt&ral a##&+&lations that Bill be dis#&ssed in s&bse<&ent #hapters. hro&gh this, =ar4ist #ategories #ontin&ed to play an ideologi#al role alongside national ones, both of the+ &ndergoing alterations in the pro#ess. heir effi#a#y depended not on people-s belief in the+ b&t on their &se in so#ial str&ggle. Ehether or not the long%ter+ res&lt Bo&ld have been to #onstit&te belief in the 0properly indigeniIed2 #ategories of =ar4is+ is a <&estion that ti+e Bill no longer tell. As the politi#s folloBing Cea&ses#&-s o&ster +ade #lear, his di#tatorship engendered a p&bli# rev&lsion that has r&ined @#o++&nis+@-s rep&tation in !o+ania. "ro+ the o&tset, hoBever, the dis#o&rse of =ar4is+% Leninis+ had been an &nBel#o+e g&est for +ost !o+anians. 3t had ref&sed for +any years to take seri% 1:: =EA*1 D" CD*"L3C o&sly the #ategories that #o&nted, in their e4perien#e, the #ategories of national val&es. =ar4ist ideas Bere i+portant to #&lt&ral prod&#ers largely as a +eans of s+&ggling into #&lt&ral #ontests the national ideas that +attered +ost. hose latter ideas soon took over, interr&pting the dis#o&rse of =ar4is+ and redefining its p&rposes. he prin#ipal #ontrib&tion of indig#niIed =ar4is+ Bas to reprod&#e a national ideology that noB had in#reased effi#a#y before a politi#al apparat&s operating aBkBardly on =ar4ist #redentials. he indigeniIation of =ar4is+/the do+esti#ation of an i+posed lang&age and the s&bversion of its #ategories/o##&rred thro&gh the rhetori# e+ployed in #ontests, s&#h as those Bithin the sphere of #&lt&ral prod&#tion. Ehat 3 have s&ggested in this #hapter and the one before, hoBever, is that in tills pro#ess the dis#o&rse of =ar4is+ Bas not N&st indigeniI#d, it Bas overthroBn. 3ts so#ial agenda Bas for#ed to #apit&late to the agenda of a different syste+ of ideas. 3ntelle#t&als on both sides of #&lt&ral debates #ontrib&ted to this o&t#o+e, b&t parti#&larly those Bho +ost insisted on inserting national val&es into their talk. his Bas/parado4i#ally, as Bill be seen in #hapter $/the sa+e gro&p Bho +ost noisily pla#ed #&lt&re at the Party-s servi#e. Chapter $ Bill shoB hoB the vario&s parti#ipants Bere arrayed and Bhere the advantage lay a+ong the+.

CHAP E! "3(E Romanian Protochronism 3t has s&ddenly be#o+e dear, that the validity of an aestheti# N&dge+ent depends on the @site@ fro+ Bhi#h it has be+ +ade and the a&thority as#ribed to that siteL that the a&thority in <&estion is not an inalienable, @nat&ral@ property of the site, b&t so+ething fl&#t&ating Bith the #hanging lo#ation of the site Bithin a Bider str&#t&reL and that the a&thority of the site traditionally reserved for the aestheti#ians. . . is not any +ore to be taken for granted. />yg+&nt Ba&+an 3n ti+es of #risis, literat&re in Eastern E&rope invariably be#o+es politi#s in disg&ise. /3van 1anders '&ring the 19;5s and 1985s, in#reasing n&+bers of !o+anian Briters and literary #riti#s Bere draBn into an arg&+ent over an idea #alled @proto#hronis+.@ his idea en#o&raged #riti#s and literary historians to look for develop+ents in !o+anian #&lt&re that had anti#ipated events in the better% p&bli#iIed #&lt&res of Eestern E&rope 0th&s, @proto%#hronos@, first in ti+e2. "ro+ literat&re, proto#hronis+ spread into other fields, #hapter 9, for instan#e, shoBed an e4#ellent e4a+ple Bitho&t the proto#hronist label/Bades#&-s arg&+ent that poet E+i% 1:; 1:8 !D=A*3A* P!D DCH!D*31= nes#& Bas E&rope-s first radi#al so#iologist of peripheral #apitalis+. Clearly sy+pto+atiIing the plight of s&baltern #&lt&res do+inated by +etropolitan #enters, proto#hronis+ soon attra#ted the attention of a !o+anian party leadership that also Bished to raise !o+ania-s i+age in the estee+ of the Borld. !o+anians and o&tside observers alike have #onsidered proto#hronis+ a+ong the strongest +anifestations of national ideology &nder C#a&s#s#&/ even, perhaps, that leadership-s basi# ideology. Proto#hronis+ Bas an intensified res&s#itation of interBar indigenist arg&+ents abo&t the national essen#eL yet its #onte4t disting&ished the+ fro+ it. he labels @traditionalist@ and @+odernist@ noB often #overed a##&sations of fas#is+ and dog+atis+L to prote#t internal +arkets Bas less of an iss&e, in so#ialis+, than beforeL and the logi# driving C#a&s#s#&-s personality #&lt/into Bhi#h the very ter+ @national essen#e@ entered6/differed fro+ the logi# behind si+ilar #&lts aro&nd interBar leaders s&#h as Codrean&. *evertheless, the i+pression of #ontin&ity that e+erges fro+ anthologies on the national essen#e, draBing their #ontrib&tors e<&ally fro+ before and after 199$ 0e.g., =ar##a 19;$L ". =ihail#s#& 19812, is not +isleading. As before, the parties to the arg&+ent &sed it to e4press their vieBs on foreign i+perialis+, foreign allian#es, and the proble+s of !o+ania-s politi#al and e#ono+i# develop+ent. Literat&re Bas on#e again in the forefront of the arg&+entsL and as before, +any other dis#iplines fo&nd the *ation and its val&es a handy rhetori#al arena for Baging #o+petitive str&ggles. 3ndeed, the res&+ption of these debates after 19;5 #onfir+s +y arg&+ent in #hapter 1, that @the *ation@ had be#o+e deeply e+bedded in intelle#t&al life. 3n Cea&Mes#&-s !o+ania as before 0b&t +ore so2, prod&#ers of #&lt&re so&ght to pers&ade state b&rea&#rats of their

#&lt&ral representativeness, the aptness of their vision of !o+anian #&lt&re for !o+ania-s tr&e #hara#ter. he field of parti#ipants Bas as diverse and #o+ple4 as before b&t #o&ld be grossly di#hoto+iIed into tBo #a+ps, &sing +any of the labels and a##&sations of their prede#essors forty and fifty years earlier. 3n this #hapter 3 e4plore the debate aro&nd proto#hronis+ and shoB hoB it appropriated not only the ter+s b&t +any of the great fig&res of interBar 0and earlier2 !o+anian #&lt&re. 3 des#ribe the proto#hronist idea, interpret the #onfli#t as in part a str&ggle over for+s of #&lt&ral a&thority, and s&ggest hoB the proto#hronist variant of national ideology Borked in a so#ialist @e#ono+y of shortage.@ 3n brief, 3 arg&e that proto#hronis+-s #hara#teristi#s folloB fro+ the #onte4t in Bhi#h it !D=A*3A* P!D DCH!D*31= 1:9 arose as !o+ania-s leadership reno&n#ed a +oderate refor+is+ and ret&rned to a +ore #entraliIed 1talinist politi#al e#ono+y Bith an &n&s&al e+phasis on ideologi#al #ontrol strategies. As !o+ania-s e#ono+i# #risis deepened and neB poli#ies of @self%finan#ing@ +ade #&lt&ral prod&#ers +ore dependent on the +arket/hoBever #rippled it Bas by politi#al #onsiderations/the str&ggle a+ong prod&#ers of #&lt&re intensified. his str&ggle took espe#ially a#&te for+s in literat&re and the arts 0as opposed to history, for e4a+ple2, be#a&se these areas of #&lt&re Bere +ade espe#ially v&lnerable to the +arket and Bere deprived of state s&bsidies +ore than Bere @a#ade+i#@ spe#ialties, Bhere salaries fro+ tea#hing and resear#h posts #ontin&ed to provide reliable so&r#es of s&pport that +any Briters and artists la#ked. hese @+arket@ fa#tors Bere responsible, 3 believe, for #reating Bithin literat&re +ore overt opposition than e4isted in other fields. he opposition +anifested itself in the rea#tion to proto#hronis+. hose Briters, artists, #riti#s, and others Bho, in response to straitened #ir#&+stan#es for #&lt&ral #reation invented and spread the proto#hronist idea, had great i+pa#t, they #ontrib&ted to #entraliIing !o+anian so#iety, to e4panding the politi#al apparat&s, and to eli+inating other sorts of val&es 0and other national gro&ps2 fro+ the #o+petition for reso&r#es in reso&r#e%strapped !o+anian so#iety. 1o also, to so+e e4tent, did those Bho opposed the+, e4pending their energies in a Noint defense of intelle#t&al a&thority rather than in a +ore s&bstantial #riti<&e of poBer. hat is, proto#hronis+ in #&lt&re did not si+ply refle#t b&t Bas part of/literally, #onstit&ted/the #onstr&#tion of a #entraliIed !o+anian syste+ very different fro+ that of H&ngary, for e4a+ple, or Poland.

C"arifications
=y analysis in this #hapter re<&ires so+e preli+inary #larifi#ations. "irst, 3 folloB Bo&rdie& 019;$2 in seeing theoreti#al dis#&ssion a+ong !o+anian intelle#t&als as a for+ of pra#ti#al #o+petition. his is by no +eans to s&ggest that the #o+batants si+ply +anip&lated national identity to p&rs&e poBer, they Bere intensely #o++itted to the val&es in ter+s of Bhi#h they Baged their arg&+ents, as 3 have dis#overed ti+e and again in +y en#o&nters Bith !o+anian intelle#t&als of all kinds. 3 do Bish to s&ggest, hoBever, that this very

1;5 !D=A*3A* P!D DCH!D*31= #o++it+ent itself #ontrib&ted to giving a parti#&lar for+ to arg&+ents that have additional stakes, less #learly seen. 1e#ond, strengthening that for+ Bas the #ensorship &nder Bhi#h the debates Bere Baged, a #ensorship both internaliIed and instit&tionally i+posedL this +ade it so+eti+es i+possible to p&rs&e #ertain kinds of str&ggles e4#ept by adopting the ter+s of earlier arg&+ents, Bhether or not their vo#ab&lary a##&rately #apt&red the #&rrent iss&es. hird, the adoption of those earlier ter+s tended to divert the dis#&ssion into already established #hannels, t&rning an arg&+ent abo&t the gro&nds for establishing, #ir#&lating, and a##&+&lating literary val&es into one abo&t fas#is+, patriotis+, betrayal, and antise+itis+. hese do&ble #onstraints on the for+ of dis#o&rse re<&ire one to look not only at the iss&es e4pressed on the s&rfa#e b&t also at those dis#ernible in i+ages and +etaphors the parti#ipants e+ployed. An additional point of #larifi#ation #on#erns Bho+ 3 in#l&de as parties to the debate and Bhat labels one sho&ld apply to the+. A#t&al or potential parti#ipants in the debates abo&t proto#hronis+ o##&pied a Bide spe#tr&+ of positions, so+e +ore e4aggerated than others. =oreover, the distan#e betBeen the opposite poles in#reased as of abo&t 1985L hen#e, state+ents taken fro+ the de#ade of the 1985s ar# likely to be +ore e4tre+e than those that initiated the arg&+ent. 3n this analysis 3 #annot do N&sti#e to n&an#es. 3 si+plify both +y dis#&ssion and the i+age of reality it proNe#ts by ill&strating Bith relatively +ore polariIed positions. 3 &se these +ore often than +oderate ones be#a&se 3 believe that e4aggerations and depart&res fro+ the nor+ are &s&ally +ore revealing for so#ial analysis than the nor+ itself. he politi#iIation of the field of literary #riti#is+ in the 1985s Bas s&#h +at it Bas diffi#&lt not to be draBn into one #a+p or the other 0Cond&ra#he 1981, 72. 3t is nevertheless tr&e that betBeen the opposed #a+ps lay an inter+ediate Ione in Bhi#h people e<&ivo#ated, partially disagreed, or said nothing p&bli#ly Bhile revealing their senti+ents thro&gh the #o+pany they kept.7 3 si+plify additionally by &sing only those state+ents +ade by persons Bithin !o+ania, even tho&gh so+e +aNor #ontrib&tors to the debate Bere !o+anians living abroad. E4aggerations on the proto#hronist side Bere asso#iated espe#ially Bith T+igrT losif Constantin 'r[gan in 3taly and, on the opposite side, Bith !adio "ree E&rope in =&ni#h and its #ontrib&tors in Paris. Dpposition fro+ !adio "ree E&rope Bas probably instr&+ental in p&shing #ertain proto#hronists Bithin !o+ania toBard +ore &n#o+pro+ising stands. Be#a&se 3 be% !D=A*3A* P!D DCH!D*31= 1;1 lieve the stakes 0indeed, the entire ga+e2 differed greatly for T+igrTs as opposed to persons inside !o+ania, 3 e4#l&de T+igrT state+ents e4#ept for o##asional referen#e to their effe#ts on persons in !o+ania. *evertheless, they Bere #r&#ial in setting the ter+s of internal arg&+ent, for proto#hronis+ Bas in part a str&ggle over hoB to represent !o+ania and its val&es, both internally and abroad. !adio "ree E&rope a+plified and broad#ast ba#k into !o+ania one set of representations 0largely the opponents to proto#hronis+2 that otherBise +ight have been stifled by #ensorship. "or this reason, proto#hronists rea#ted vigoro&sly to these broad#asts. 9

Up to noB, 3 have spoken of @proto#hronists@ and @their opponents.@ Labels for the opposing sides proliferated, +aking it diffi#&lt to de#ide hoB best to #hara#teriIe the+ for des#riptive p&rposes. Dpponents of proto#hronis+ referred to the+selves vario&sly as @de+o#rats,@ @+odernists,@ @&pholders of the #riti#al spirit,@ and so forth, and to the others as @proto#hronists,@ @nationalists,@ @traditionalists,@ the @Barb& Fro&p@ 0after one of the +ost poBerf&l and visible +e+bers2, the @neoprolet#&ltists@ 0the designation !adio "ree E&rope often &sed2, and the @nationalist 1talinists@ 0i.e., heirs to @dog+atis+@2 0see 1hafir 1987\2. Proto#hronists, for their part, tended to #all the+selves patriots, and they often 0b&t not alBays2 reNe#ted the label of tradi% tionalis+L they #ategori#ally ref&sed that of 1talinis+, instead a##&sing the other side of @dog+atis+@ and @prolet#&ltist@ leanings. hey a#knoBledged the ter+ @proto#hronis+@ and asso#iated the+selves Bith it enth&siasti#ally, so+eti+es &sing it in self%referen#e. 1o+eti+es they #alled their opponents @e&ropeaniIers,@ @+odernists@ 0+eant peNoratively2, or @syn#hronists@ 0after their reading of Lovin#s#&-s theory Usee #hapter 1V2L +ore often they si+ply Brote @#ertain people@ or @#ertain #riti#s.@ hat both sides #alled the+selves tr&e patriots and a##&sed the other side of dog+atis+ and prolet#&ltis+ is a s&re sign that those labels Bere doing +ore than si+ply des#ribing. Dn o##asion, one or the other side &sed the ter+s @right@ and @left@ to #hara#teriIe the arg&+ent. Dpponents +ight link proto#hronists Bith the far right of the interBar years, on the gro&nds that their nationalist e4tre+es Bere si+ilarL yet this labeling rarely entailed referring to the+selves as the @left@ 0a label +ost Bere loath to #lai+2. =ore than one proto#hronist arg&ed to +e, hoBever, that proto#hronists Bere the leftL and an opponent of the+ #alled herself$ part of the right. !o+anian intelle#t&als listed the sa+e sets of p&bli#ations as sharing positions on one or other side of the debate _Literary !o+ania, !o+anian 1;6 !D=A*3A* P!D DCH!D*31= Life, and Bentieth Cent&ry as opposing proto#hronis+, for instan#eL he Eeek, he =orning 1tar, and he "la+e : as favoring it2, b&t differed on Bhi#h of these gro&pings sho&ld be #alled @right@ or @left.@ hese labels are f&rther #o+pli#ated by the involve+ent of the e+igre #o++&nity at !adio "ree E&rope. A n&+ber of the+ had had ties to the interBar right 0as proto#hronists gl#ef&lly observed2, yet they often ba#ked proto#hronis+-s opponents, Bhose history rarely in#l&ded s&#h ti#s. Ehen the !adio took a positive attit&de to so+eone Bho+ proto#hronists ad+ired, hoBever, and Bho did have past asso#iations Bith the right, s&#h as Constantin *oi#a 0see #hapter ;2, the possible refer %#nts for @right@ and @left@ be#a+e even +ore #onf&sed. hese #onf&sions #onfir+ Bhat Be +ight s&spe#t, na+ely, that the ter+s @left@ and @right@ a#<&ired s&#h #o+ple4 +eanings in so#ialist !o+ania that for +e to &se the+ Bo&ld obs#&re +ore than it Bo&ld ill&+inate. hey served as Beapons of e4#l&sion, not reliable des#riptions. A+id the proliferating ins&lts and insin&ations, 3 find the label @proto#hronists@ the +ost ne&tral and Bill e+ploy it in this #hapter. 03 &nders#ore, hoBever, that in avoiding a ter+ s&#h as @nationalists@ in preferen#e to @proto#hronists,@ Bhi#h refers to so+ething +ore spe#ifi# than the general #onfli#t of Bhi#h proto#hronis+ Bas b&t one sign, 3 &se this label as an &+brella for a #olle#tion of pheno+ena that not everyone Bo&ld see as f&lly interlinked in !o+anian

#&lt&ral life.2 A label for the opponents of proto#hronis+ is harder to #o+e by, sin#e the opposition did not for+ a &nified #a+p. "or Bant of a better sol&tion, 3 give it the so+eBhat Bhi+si#al designation @antiproto#hronists,@ also &sed by the proto#hronists. his ter+ #apt&res the fa#t that these persons Bere &nited, if at all, #hiefly in their opposition to proto#hronis+. o speak of @antiproto#hronists@ &nderlines Bhere the initiative in the debate lay, Bith the proto#hronists, Bho set the agenda and pla#ed others on the defensive. his res&lted fro+ the #onne#tion betBeen proto#hronis+, on the one hand, and, on the other, poBer and the #entral i+peratives of the so#ialist syste+, as 3 Bill e4plain beloB. 3t is diffi#&lt to s&ggest the relative siIes of the proto#hronist and antiproto#hronist for#es. 1everal of the latter insisted to +e that the Beight of the for+er Bithin the #o++&nity of Briters and #riti#s sho&ld not be overe+phasiIed, and they arrived independently at +a4i+al esti+ates of abo&t 1$ to 65 per#ent. Proto#hronists Bo&ld probably have disp&ted this fig&re, b&t 3 do not have one fro+ the+ to offer in its pla#e. he <&estion is #o+pli#ated by the large n&+ber of persons Bho did not take p&bli# positions on the debate and Bho+ one #o&ld !D=A*3A* P!D DCH!D*31= 1;7 #o&nt only by assessing the val&es i+pli#it in their Bork/for e4a+ple, an a&thor Bho +ade no p&bli# reNoinder to proto#hronis+ yet translated Bestern Briters Bas probably antiproto#hronist. People of this sort, #lai+ed +y antiproto#hronist asso#iates, Bere the nor+ a+ong #&lt&re%prod&#ers. he one #lear sign that antiproto#hronists n&+eri#ally do+inated the Eriters- Union 0a s&bset of the f&ll set of Briters2, Bas that they Bere able to e4#l&de all proto#hronists fro+ positions of leadership Bithin that body in ele#tions in 19;; and 1981. =ore pre#ise indi#ations than this are i+possible. 3 draB +y data for this analysis #hiefly fro+ p&blished state+ents, for the proto#hronists, and #hiefly fro+ intervieBs, for their opponents. 3n parti#&lar, +y ill&strative <&otations #o+e disproportionately fro+ proto#hronists, oBing to their differential appearan#e in print. 0=ost of +y intervieBs, by #ontrast, Bere Bith their opponents.2 As of abo&t 1985, the opposition to proto#hronis+ be#a+e largely oral, those Bho+ 3 intervieBed said this Bas be#a&se as of that ti+e, #ensors generally blo#ked the replies they Bo&ld have liked to +ake to proto#hronist atta#ks on the+. hose feB Bho voi#ed opposition p&bli#ly 0e.g., =an#a 19812 risked being s&bNe#ted to #a+paigns of vilifi#ation that +ade speaking o&t s#ar#ely Borth the #ost. A rare e4#eption Bas an antiproto#hronist arti#le p&blished by one of the very top Party offi#ials 0!ad&les#& 198:2, to Bhi#h/for on#e/proto#hronists #o&ld not respond.; Aside fro+ this and a feB other overt state+ents, the opposition tended to signal its e4isten#e pri+arily thro&gh veiled state+ents in #o++entary on other topi#s, thro&gh referen#es to the #onte+porary res&rgen#e of interBar debates betBeen @+odernists and tradi% tionalists@/a Bay of #alling their opponents fas#ists, as 3 e4plained in #hapter 9/or thro&gh essays in praise of E&rope 0e.g., Pal#olog& 19872, rather than thro&gh overt reNoinder to proto#hronist #hallenges. 3n addition to having been silen#ed a#tively, +any of proto#hronis+-s adversaries Bere silent by #hoi#e. hey saB this as a for+ of #riti#al elo<&en#e that #onde+ned Bitho&t appeal a Bork or idea others had s&pported

enth&siasti#ally. As one parti#ipant p&t it, 1o+eti+es silen#e is ne#essary for a #riti#L ... by entering into a dialog&e, yo& +ake at least partly pla&sible the flatterers- abs&rd positionL ref&sing the+ a dialog&e #overs the+ grad&ally Bith ridi#&le, like a light rain 0=anol#s#&, in P&r%#a+ 198:,199%19$2. Another arg&ed, in an essay entitled @ he 1ignifi#an#e of a Criti#-s 1ilen#es,@ that +eas&ring a #riti#-s silen#es enables one to Beigh his +o% 1;9 !D=A*3A* P!D DCH!D*31= rality, Bhat books do#s he ref&se to #o++ent &pon, and Bhen is this +orally good or reprehensible 0'obres#& 1989, 6$$%6$:2.8 Ehether #hosen or i+posed, the relative silen#e of this gro&p +akes its version of the disp&te harder to e4e+plify. 3n asking Bhat Bas at iss&e in the arg&+ent over proto#hronis+, then, the eviden#e 3 offer is +ostly Bhat pro%to#hronists #o+plained abo&t in p&bli#, s&pple+ented Bith +y intervieBs. his refle#ts to so+e e4tent the a#t&al field of talk Bithin Bhi#h proto#hronis+ &nfolded, as Bell as the relative #oales#en#e of the gro&ps and their sit&ations Bithin the politi#al field of for#e. 3 Bish to add a final #larifi#ation of a different sort. he position 3 take by the end of this #hapter +ay lead so+e readers 0parti#&larly those of East E&ropean origin2 to #on#l&de that 3 think atta#h+ent to national val&es is bla+able and inevitably serves the #entraliIation of poBer. 3 disavoB s&#h a #on#l&sion. Atta#h+ent to the e4isten#e and the Bell%being of one-s nation has no&rished +&#h h&+an nobility, #reativity, and enhan#e+ent of spirit. his #an be said of +any of the persons Bho fig&re in the present and later #hapters. =y oBn #on#ern, hoBever, is Bith the for+s ass&+ed by do+ination and parti#&larly Bith the role of national ideology in deepening it. o e4a+ine hoB those Bho &se the *ation/even if it be to #reate +ore roo+ for their *ation in a syste+ of global poBer/#onstr&#t do+inations of their oBn leaves +e little roo+ to p&rs&e the benefits that iss&e fro+ national val&es. his do#s not +ean that 3 dis+iss s&#h benefits as in#onse<&ential.

The Birth of )rotochronism

3n 19;9 there appeared in the !o+anian #&lt&ral p&bli#ation Bentieth Cent&ry an arti#le by the literary #riti# Edgar Pap&, a s#holar in his seventies. Pap& had beg&n his #areer as the &niversity assistant of a fa+o&s interBar aestheti#ian, literary historian, and philosopher of #&lt&reL had spent a feB years in prison after the #hange of regi+eL and folloBing a de#ade or so of +is#ellaneo&s e+ploy+ent, had been rehabilitated and retired Bith a pension. His arti#le, @!o+anian Proto#hronis+,@ arg&ed that #ontrary to vieBs Bidespread in !o+ania, the national literary tradition Bas not largely inspired by Bestern for+s b&t Bas highly original. =oreover, he said, !o+anian literary #reations had often anti#ipated #reative develop+ents in the Eest 0s&#h as s&rrealis+, dadais+, and so forth2, even tho&gh these anti#ipations had !D=A*3A* P!D DCH!D*31= 1;$ often not been a#knoBledged as s&#h be#a&se they Bere little knoBn abroad. 3n arg&ing that @ h&s, . . . one of the do+inant denning traits of o&r literat&re in the Borld #onte4t is proto#hronis+@ 0Pap& 19;9, 92, he +eant to signal

!o+anian develop+ents that te+porally pre#eded si+ilar develop+ents elseBhere. His #o+plaint Bas less that foreigners did not re#ogniIe !o+anian a#hieve+ents than that !o+anians the+selves Bere inade<&ately appre#iative of their oBn #apa#ities, being obsessed Bith i+itating Bestern for+s/Bhat he #alled syn#hronis+, in a biased reading of the key ter+ in interBar #riti# Lovines#&-s +ain Bork 0Bhi#h treated not N&st i+itation b&t also #&lt&ral differentiation Usee #hapter 1V2. hree years later, Pap& fleshed o&t his idea Bith a book ill&strating it e4tensively. His essays shoBed that one or another !o+anian Briter had anti#ipated the Baro<&e, !o+anti#is+, the revol&tionary val&es of 1898, the styles or the+es of s&#h E&ropean Briters as "la&bert and 3bsen, and so forth.@ He did not #lai+ that !o+anian #reations had infl&en#ed Bestern art for+s, only that they had been propheti#. As his ai+, he #ontin&ally stressed the need @to sti+&late knoBledge of o&rselves in o&r oBn #ons#io&sness@ 019;;, 192, to #o&ntera#t !o+anians-- tenden#y to se# the+selves as ba#kBard, to overt&rn their i+age of their position in the Borld. 3n short, he Bas #on#erned Bith !o+anians- self%i+age and their re#ognition of their oBn val&es. People sho&ld not think of !o+ania as part of a periphery, he said, b&t as lying on the #entral #rossroads of the Borld-s great #iviliIations 019;;, 112, re#eptive to all #&rrents and therefore #apable of #reatively synthesiIing this diverse set of infl&en#es in innovative Bays 0Pap& 19;:2. Before entering into the re+arkable re#eption a##orded Pap&-s idea, 3 sho&ld note tBo things abo&t the #onte4t in Bhi#h it arose. "irst, the idea of te+poral priority, Bhi#h appears often in national ideologies, had #ir#&lated in the 1oviet Union d&ring 1talin-s ti+e/so+eti+es #arried to l&di#ro&s e4tre+es/Bhen 1oviet s#holars fo&nd their people first in every invention of any i+portan#e 0see )agarlitsky 1988, 171/1772. h&s, even tho&gh Pap&-s !o+anian priorities #on#erned only the Eest, his idea of !o+anian proto#hronis+ #ons#io&sly or &n#ons#io&sly belittled 0Bhile also i+itating2 1oviet pretentio&s to grande&r. 3 believe this Bay of tBeaking 1oviet noses f&rthered the lengths to Bhi#h !o+anians/Bho have generally been anti%!&ssian/so+eti+es took proto#hronis+, as the #o&ntry greB ever +ore e#ono+i#ally dependent on the 1oviet Union after 1985. 1e#ond, Pap&-s arti#le appeared in the after+ath of Cea&s#s#&-s @S&ly theses,@ des#ribed in #hap% 1;: !D=A*3A* P!D DCH!D*31= ter 7. 03ndeed, Bentieth Cent&ry a#tively #o++issioned the arti#le in the Bake of the @theses,@ Pap&-s proto#hronist vieBs being already knoBn. 152 C#a&s#s#&-s spee#h had in#l&ded e4hortations s&#h as the folloBing, A not very be#o+ing pra#ti#e has developed, #o+rades, to look only at Bhat is being done elseBhere, abroad, to resort for everything to i+ports. his betrays also a #ertain #on#ept of #onsidering everything that is foreign to be better, a #ertain/let &s say/prostration before Bhat is foreign, and espe#ially before Eestern +akes .... Co& Bell knoB that in the past E+ines#& #riti#ised and +ade f&n of s&#h +entalities in his poe+s. he +ore so Be have to do it to% day. . . . Ee are against boBing doBn before everything that is foreign. . . . i+e has #o+e for Ue+phasiIingV the need to resort to Uo&rV oBn for#es in the first pla#e, . . . and only afterBards to appeal to i+port 0C#a&s#s#& 19;6, 65$%65;2.

here ar# books printed in tens of tho&sands of #opies and Bhi#h +ake an apology of the bo&rgeois Bay of life . . . Bhile good !o+anian books #annot be printed be#a&se of la#k of paper 0ibid., 6192. Fiven s&#h e+phases, proto#hronis+ Bas ass&red a brilliant #areer.@ "olloBing the p&bli#ation of Pap&-s arti#le, other Britings appeared that #arried a si+ilar arg&+ent, &s&ally also e+ploying the ter+ @proto#hronis+@ 0e.g., 3. Constantin#s#& 19;;L >a+fir#s#& 19;$, 19;92. he arg&+ent heated &p on#e the infl&ential #riti# *i#ola# =anol#s#& 019;;2 gave Pap&-s book a +i4ed revieB, #alling attention to the e4#esses that +ight floB fro+ its otherBise interesting analyses. his revieB provoked an indignant reply 0Anghel 19;;2 and a series of +ore e4tensive dis#&ssions. he #&lt&ral Beekly he =orning 1tar organiIed long e4#hanges on Pap&-s Bork in 19;; and 19;8 0see Unghean& 198$2, and again in 198$ 0L&#eafar&l 198$2, and +ade it the s&bNe#t of n&+ero&s intervieBs, as did he "la+e, he EeekX and other p&bli#ations 0e.g., P&r#ar& 198:L Unghean& 19862. 3n#reasing n&+bers of books analyIed the idea or based the+selves Bholly or in part &pon its pre+% ises 0e.g., Bad#s#& 1989YL Pop#s#& 198;L !a#hier& 198$2, Bhile arti#les set o&t to shoB that even those &nsy+patheti# to the idea so+eti+es i+ple+ented it &nBittingly 0e.g., 1ores#& 19872. President C#a&s#s#& hi+self Beighed in Bith proto#hronist #lai+s/anno&n#ing, for e4a+ple, that Bell before Forba#hev, he had had ideas abo&t fa#tory self%+anage+ent and other refor+s ofp#restroika 0'#l#tant 1988, 882. his, then, Bas Bhat proto#hronis+ +eant/in its advo#ates- oBn ter+s/Bhen it first appeared, a #on#ern Bith !o+anians- self%i+age and Bith the relation of !o+anian val&es to the rest of the Borld. Let !D=A*3A* P!D DCH!D*31= 1;; &s begin the task of &nderstanding proto#hronis+-s signifi#an#e by folloBing these s&rfa#e ter+s a bit f&rther. he defense of !o+ania-s self%i+age, in the for+ of a rea#tion against #&lt&ral #onte+pt and #&lt&ral do+ination fro+ the Eest, Bas vividly e4pressed in proto#hronist intervieBs and other p&bli#ations. Proto#hronists Bere indignant at !o+anians- pra#ti#ally inborn inferiority #o+ple4 that +akes the+ se# their oBn #&lt&re as inferiorL at the Brongh#ad#d idea that !o+anian #&lt&re #onsists of leftovers fro+ others#&lt&ral feasts and that its nat&ral role sho&ld be @spirit&al vassalage@L at the i+age of !o+anians as @a spe#ies of troglodyte, Bhose -barbaris+- +&st be -#iviliIed- a##ording to laBs that ar# not Uo&rsS@L and at the @defeatist do#trine that divides the Borld into +aNor and +inor #&lt&res@ 0P&r#ar& 198:, 8$, 195, 7::, 7;92. A&thors de#ried @the si#k #o+ple4 of o&r inferiority@ and #o+plained that U1yn#hronistsV do not be#o+e alar+ed Bhen negative things are said abo&t o&r literat&re. 3t is no +istake, they say, to assign o&r literat&re a s&bordinate stat&s, ... for tilis is alBays the #ase Bith literat&res of s+all, +inor, or periph% eral #&lt&res dependent on larger #enters. . . . B&t Be sho&ld not e4propriate !o+anian literat&re of +erits it obNe#tively possesses 0Unghean& 198$, 789, 951%9562. UD&r literat&reV #annot keep li+ping along behind E&ropean #iviliIation, s&bNe#t only to the laB of syn#hronis+, fi4ared on a peripheral identity. . . . UD&r #&lt&reV is not a s&baltern #&lt&re and the road to o&r val&es does not pass thro&gh the Eest 0!a#hier& 198$, 7;, 952.

!o+anian artists are less pop&lariIed in their oBn #o&ntry than ar# foreign art% ists of lesser stanire. his pheno+enon &nfort&nately takes pla#e in the #on% s#io&sness of those Bho #ontrol the progra++ing of art, persons Bho treat a national val&e in one Bay and a foreign personality in another 0Bra#s#& 1986e2. he @ba#kBard@ #ons#io&sness hasn-t +&#h faith in its oBn poBers to #reate, and even if it does a#knoBledge the+, it #onsiders that the validation of these val&es is in the e4#l&sive #o+peten#e of foreign #&l+ral #enters 0Unghean& 198$, 9:92. "inally, so+e observers la+ented that s&#h disdain for !o+anian #&lt&re #o+es not only fro+ foreigners b&t also fro+ @the se#ret #onte+pt that !o+ania-s previo&s r&ling #lasses held for the national #&lt&re and their koB% toBing to all things foreign@ 0>a+fir#s#& 19;$, 982. he #hor&s of proto#hronist o&trage over Eest E&ropean #&lt&ral do+inan#e and its lo#al effe#ts Bas not Bholly &nison. 1o+e reviled Lovines#&-s notion of @syn#hronis+@ and its latter%day adherents, i+i% 1;8 !D=A*3A* P!D DCH!D*31= tators of the Eest, as disdaining lo#al #&lt&ral val&esL they vieBed as anti% !o+anian any advo#a#y of a E&ropean identity, Bhi#h perpet&ates the @theory of #&lt&ral #enters and peripheries@ and is a for+ of @#&lt&ral terroris+@ 0P&r#ar& 198:, 7;52. Dthers +erely regretted that !o+anians have spent so +&#h energy in their obsession Bith @syn#hroniIing@ the+selves Bith the Eest, Bhen their destiny ties the+ to the orbit of ByIanti&+ 0>a+fir#s#& 19;$, :92. 1o+e insisted that pro%to#hronis+ and syn#hronis+ sho&ld Bork together 0see P&r#ar& 198:, :7, 8;, 775%771L !a#hier& 198$, 7:%982, s&#h that a #&lt&re develops its sp##ifi#ity thro&gh en#o&ntering other #&lt&res relative to Bhi#h it is ahead in so+e respe#ts and behind in others. B&t regardless of the spe#ifi# +i4 of BesterniIation and lo#al val&es post&lated, +ost pro%to#hronists agreed that there +&st be a Beakening of the absol&te Bestern referen#e that prod&#es s&baltern or @#hild@ #&lt&res 0!a#hier& 198$, 6:2, and they #alled for greater #&lt&ral poli##ntris+ and the diversifi#ation of #&lt&ral voi#es 0L&#eafar&l 198$2. All of the+ insisted on die need to develop #&lt&ral dignity. o readers a#<&ainted Bith C#a&s#s#&-s foreign poli#y and its atte+pt to #arve o&t for !o+ania a position of relative independen#e in die Borld, these e+phases of proto#hronis+ Bill so&nd fa+iliar. 3ndeed, they #hara#teriIe +any anti#olonial gro&ps and +ove+ents, Bhether in so#ialist or other #onte4tsL they are ideas that deserve to be taken serio&sly, as part ot the e+an#ipation of oppressed peoples. 'e#larations of independen#e abo&nded in proto#hronist talk. @WPap&V affir+s the #reative independen#e of !o+anian literat&re@ 0Unghean& 198$, 78;2. @Ee o&ght not to e4plain a #&lt&re only thro&gh the infl&en#es e4er#ised &pon it, for then Be do not e4plain its originalityL Be sho&ld not +ake the evol&tion of a #&lt&re #ontingent &pon the per+anent i+planting of s&#h infl&en#es, b&t sho&ld N&dge #&lt&res for Bhat they are ...@ 0ibid., 7992. @Einning aestheti# sovereignty is ... essential for the f&t&re of o&r nation, Bhose prin#ipal terrain for affir+ing itself is that of the spirit, of #&lt&ral val&es@ 0>a+fires#& 1987, 7;:2. @Proto#hronis+ seeks the ann&l+ent of nor+s that pla#e a literat&re in e4#essive #reative dependen#e and s&bordination to the val&es of other literat&res@ 0P&r#ar& 198:, :62. @3f a

#o&ntry aspires to its independen#e, Bhy sho&ldn-t a #&lt&re also aspire to independen#e, to standing on its oBnK@ 03bid., 7712. @Can one speak of real independen#e if a nation is prevented . . . fro+ e4er#ising its right to #&lt&reK@ 0 &dor 198:,6752. At iss&e Bas not only politi#al b&t e#ono+i# independen#e, N&st !D=A*3A* P!D DCH!D*31= 1;9 as it Bas in the Cea&Mes#& leadership-s 0&ns&##essf&l2 striving toBard e#ono+i# a&tar#hy. Proto#hronist Briting Bas rife Bith i+agery of the prod&#tion, #ons&+ption, and #ir#&lation of val&e, the relation of the internal and e4ternal +arkets, and the +atter of sy+boli# a##&+&lation. @ULovines#& saBV the basis of !o+anian #&lt&ral a#tivity in an &n%differentiated borroBing, syn#hronis+ a&to+ati#ally pres&pposing i+itation/th&s a role of #ons&+er and al+ost not at all of #reator. . . . UHe believedV diat Be have #reated nothing and have i+ported everything@ 0Unghean& 198$, 78;, 79;2. @U he e4a+ple of Briter GV is a proto#hrony that, having not been treated as s&#h, lost its right to E&ropean #ir#&lation@ 0ibid., 9912. @UEe de#ry theV negle#t of Uo&r #lassi# #&lt&ralV f&nd, together Bith the i+porting ... of #ertain val&es fro+ elseBhere, Bhi#h do not enri#h &s@ 0P&r#ar& 198:, 1562.16 Both the dire#tion p&rs&ed by the !o+anian leadership and the i+pli#ations of proto#hronis+ shared a kind of prote#tionis+, an e+phasis on restri#ting the infl&en#e of the Eest on the !o+anian +arket. Both i+plied an initial a&tar#hy that Bo&ld later reverse itself/a sort of pri+itive a##&+&lation that Bo&ld be#o+e self%s&staining, that #an generate develop+ent Bitho&t inf&sions of foreign +aterials and #apital 0be this #&lt&ral or e#ono+i#2. Dne parti#&larly #lear Bay in Bhi#h both proto#hronists and their opponents posed the relation of !o+anian #&lt&ral prod&#tion to international #ir#&lation Bas in ter+s of the relationship betBeen @national@ and @global@ U&niversalV, a the+e that provided a prin#ipal arena of +ore or less dire#t debate betBeen the different gro&ps. Both sides asserted that the relationship of !o+anian #&lt&re to the BorldBide #ir#&lation of #&lt&ral val&es is of great i+portan#e, b&t the dire#tion of the envisioned relationship differs for the tBo #a+ps. Antiproto#hronist Britings tend toBards an i+pli#it #apital%i+port +odel that generates develop+ent and s&bse<&ent e4port, they advo#ate bringing in the #&lt&ral val&es of the Eest so as to i+prove native literary prod&#ts, Bhi#h +ight then enter into international #ir#&lation on their oBn +erits, gaining Borld stat&re for their #reators and for the *ation. 17 Proto#hronist Britings, on the other hand, advo#ate sta&n#hing literary @i+ports@ and die #&rren#y drain they i+ply,19 prote#ting the lo#al +arket, pro+oting re#ognition for the #ontrib&tions !o+anians have +ade to Borld #&lt&re, and perhaps 0altho&gh this is not #ertain2 even reversing the floB of val&es Bithin literat&re.- $ his #ontrast appeared in Pap&-s initial for+&lation of proto#hronis+, Bhi#h affir+ed that !o+anian #reations are original not #opies or i+itations b&t gen&ine #reations. 3t 185 !D=A*3A* P!D DCH!D*31= Bas al+ost as if he Bere seeking to se#&re the patent on #ertain ideas that have #ir#&lated profitably in the Eest, to +ake !o+ania a +aNor Borld #enter for the prod&#tion of val&e. hat the +atter of #ir#&lation is seen as dire#tly linked Bith a##&+&lation/

indeed, Bith #apital a##&+&lation/is apparent fro+ the folloBing, 3n o&r ti+es, Bhen peoples and s#holars everyBhere have be#o+e in#reasingly preo##&pied Bith inventorying the a##&+&lated h&+an goods Ub&n&riV and the intelle#t&al potential of h&+anity, a people and a #&lt&re oBe it to h&+anity to a#knoBledge dieir ri#hes `av&t&l` .... 3f Be ar# preo##&pied Bith speaking abo&t o&r pla#e and o&r role in the #ontinent-s past, then, this is not arrogan#e b&t a sto#ktaking of the #apital that Be #an deposit in the #o++on treas&ry of Borld val&es 0>a+fires#& 19;$, 82. *ote the e+phasis on indigeno&s a##&+&lation and @e4port@ into the Borld sto#k of #&lt ral #apital. And one +oderate proto#hronist e4pressed very dire#tA the #onse<&en#es of these #onsiderations for the national treas&ry, 3f o&r No&rnals in international lang&ages Bere UbetterV, Be Bo&ld greatly in% #rease their #apa#ity for e4#hange, transfor+ing the+ into a veritable hard #&rren#y Uval&taV. Ee o&ght also to sti+&late die possibilities for international s#ientifi# #ontra#ts, organiIe international do#toral #o&rses in o&r #o&ntry Bith foreign st&dents, et#., so that at least so+e of the hard #&rren#y reven&es gained diereby +ight be &sed to i+prove o&r oBn s#ientifi# infor+ation. . . . Having &p%to%date knoBledge and a healthy, intense +etabolis+ Bith other #&lt&res is a ne#essary #ondition for ... entering into international #&lt&ral #o+petition 0=ar#&s, in P&r#ar& 198:, 69;%6982. his last #o++entator-s referen#e to @#&lt&ral #o+petition@ and its link Bith the #ir#&lation of #&lt&ral prod&#ts brings &s to one of the +ost signifi#ant iss&es in the proto#hronis+ debates, the nat&re of #o+petition and +arket s&##ess and the val&es that generate this s&##ess. 3t is very #lear fro+ state+ents of both proto#hronists and their adversaries that this Bas a serio&s proble+. A+ong the for+er, #onsiderable attention Bent to asking Bhat deter+ines the re#ognition of #onte+porary Borks and Bhether #ir#&lation is or is not an indi#ation of it. "or e4a+ple, Pap& disting&ished betBeen a Bork-s Borld%#lass val&e and its Borld #ir#&lation, the for+er being intrinsi# to the Bork and not depending &pon the latter 0P&r#ar& 198:, 892. Another proto#hronist pro#lai+ed, @A val&e re+ains a val&e Bhether or not it is re#ogniIed@ 0ibid., 7;72, adding that the pro#ess of entering into Borld #ir#&its #an be distorted by i+perialist e4pansionis+ and dog+atis+, Bhereas the !D=A*3A* P!D DCH!D*31= 181 assess+ent of val&e itself is not s&bNe#t to these infl&en#es. here Bere re#&rrent #o+plaints abo&t the &nfairn#ss of Borld%+arket #o+petition, for e4a+ple, @Let +e say par#nth#ti#ally that syn#hronis+ in#&l#ates the idea of #o+petition, yet in pra#ti#e E&ropean or +ore broadly o##idental #&lt&ral life . . . raises #o+petition to a level that pre#l&des real #o++&ni#ation and the nat&ral os+osis W of val&esV@ 0Ungh#an& 198$, 9782. heir +&sings on this proble+ led proto#hronists to propose their oBn #riterion for deter+ining val&e, the notion of priority. "or the+, being first o&ght to g&arantee re#ognition. Antiproto#hronists, for their part, took iss&e Bith that idea. he proto#hronist #o+plaint is ... often eno&gh legiti+ate, to the e4tent diat val&es fro+ other national #&lt&res/e<&ivalent Bith the val&es of !o+anian #&lt&re/have entered into the E&ropean or Borld #ir#&it Bhile o&rs have not. B&t dlis defe#t is not going to be re+edied by overbloBn gest&res s&#h as the :55%page +an&s#ript 0rightly reNe#ted by the p&blisher2 proving that E+ines#&

dis#overed relativity theory before Einstein 0Catinean& 198$, 9:2. 3t is not so i+portant, 3 think, to hold/so+eti+es e4aggerating to the point of the ridi#&lo&s/that Be Bere the first, even if Be Bere ignored ... as that Be Bere tr&ly #reative. Ehat &se Bo&ld Be have of all these proto#hronist ini% tiatives ... if Be #o&ld not shoB die Borld that Be had #reated tr&e +on&% +entsK "ro+ this point of vieB, 1 #onsider it... U&ni+portantV if a !o+anian sho&ld have Britten before =ilton, asso, and others a Bork diat Bas #o+pa% rable b&t naive and r&di+entary .... D&r pride sho&ld not #onsist in being first b&t in being great 0=anoles#&, in P&r#ar& 198:, 19;2. o deter+ine that so+ething #a+e first in the for+&lation of a #ertain idea or in the &se of a #ertain pro#ed&re represents a real gain in knoBledge if Be #an also prove that, thro&gh diff&sion, die idea or pro#ed&re fertiliIed national and E&ropean literat&re. . . . B&t in the sit&ations invoked by o&r @proto#hronists,@ the <&estion of diff&sion is not posed. . . . U3Vt is not the +odern reading diat see+s to +e #ontestable, die effort to @dis#over@ in past Britings the #onfir+a% tion of o&r present ideas, b&t die tenden#y to transfor+ this into an arg&+ent abo&t priority. Ehi#h is, +ay 3 be forgiven the Bord, p&re sophistry. he liter% ary +e+ory . . . r#tainUsV only those priorities Bhi#h had so+e infl&en#e 0'obres#& 19;9, 1:$2. All three of these #riti#s Bere insisting that the g&arantor of s&##ess is not priority b&t so+ething else/originality, <&ality. he sa+e point Bas +ade even +ore r#v#alingly by an anti%proto#hronist art #riti# 0Ples& 19812. He asserted that the s&##essf&l entry of !o+anian val&es onto the Borld #ir#&it is not so+ething that #an be strat#giIed, nor is their fail&re to be re#ogniIed si+ply a @slip%&p in diplo+ati# relations governing the #ir#&lation of o&r val&es on the 186 !D=A*3A* P!D DCH!D*31= international +arket and of international val&es on o&r +arket@ 0p. 1912. Eorld stat&s for !o+anian #&lt&re Bill not be attained by @a nationalis+ that +akes e4altation profitable,@1: nor by si+ple assertion, @1o+e say that to s&##eed in the #o+petition for Borld stat&s, the s&rest +ethod is not to do o&r Bork elboB to elboB Bith the others b&t to tdl everyone hoB #o+petitive Be are@ 0p. 19$2. he state+ent points to f&nda+entally different +eans of parti#ipating in the Borld #&lt&ral +arket, by prod&#ing #o+parable prod&#ts Bhose high <&ality Bill +ake the+ #o+petitive, or, rather, by a di#tatorial strategy/one +ight #all it illo#&tionary /&n#on#erned Bith Bhether the prod&#ts ar# #o+petitive. he latter all too often #hara#teriIed the parti#ipation of #o++and e#ono+ies on Borld +arkets.1; Fiven !o+ania-s politi#al and e#ono+i# #olonial stat&s and the relatively little noti#e its #&lt&re has re#eived on the Borld stage, the proto#hronists- an4ieties abo&t independen#e and self%i+age #an for the +o+ent be taken at fa#e val&e. B&t Bhy, Be +ay Bonder, Bere all these Briters in the #pito+al #o++and e#ono+y talking so +&#h abo&t #ir#&lation and the +arketK 3 believe that Be see here the effe#ts of the partial re#o++odifi#ation of #&lt&re in the sphere of literat&re and the arts, dis#&ssed in #hapter 7. he Party leadership-s response to the e#ono+i# #risis that began in the 19;5s in#l&ded #&tting state s&pport for #&lt&re and re<&iring instit&tions s&#h as theatres, +&se&+s, p&blishing ho&ses, and #ine+as to be at least partly @self%

finan#ing.@ Ehereas in the 19$5s and 19:5s all of these had enNoyed f&ll state s&pport/ a##o+panied, of #o&rse, by politi#al interferen#e in their a#tivities/ s&ddenly in the late 19;5s they Bere ordered to fend for the+selves. his Bas not easy, for +any of the+, be#a&se red&#ed state s&bsidy did not +ean red&#ed interferen#e, th&s, theatres and #ine+as Bere e4pe#ted to attra#t a p&bli# Bhile playing to the satisfa#tion of the b&rea&#ra#y. Un&s&al s&rvival strategies e+erged, theatres that +ade and profitably sold #offins fro+ their props depart+ent, or #ine+as that advertised in h&ge letters the na+e of a politi#ally a##eptable fil+ that no one Bo&ld Bant to se#, Bhile a#t&ally r&nning a fil+ people Bo&ld Bant to see, its na+e to be fo&nd on a tiny noti#e near the door. "or Briters the #onse<&en#es Bere felt espe#ially thro&gh their p&blishing ho&ses. he regi+e of self%finan#ing p&t p&blishers in a bind, tor 0like Bestern &niversity presses2 +ost of their p&bli#ations Bere &nprofitable. Dnly in literat&re Bas this not the #aseL yet literat&re Bas ringed Bith interdi#tions. 'espite an offi#ial dis+antling of #ensorship, the resistan#e of +any Briters to Party #ontrol +ade #ensorship pro##% !D=A*1A* P!D DCH!D*31= 187 d&res in +any #ases +ore ti+e%#ons&+ing and stringent than ever. !e% stri#tions on the &se of paper and the siIe of printings +ade it diffi#&lt for presses to operate in the bla#k, sin#e Bhat passed #ensorship +ight not have b&yers, and Bhat Bo&ld have b&yers +ight be per+itted no +ore than a +odest press r&n. Be#a&se of self%finan#ing, hoBever, Bhen a press did get so+ething thro&gh #ensorship Bitho&t a restri#ted #ir#&lation, it Bo&ld print large <&antities so as to +ake +oney, knoBing that the book Bo&ld be sold o&t overnight solely fro+ the r&+or that it had been held &p in #ensorship. 18 3ndeed, one #riti# 0A. at#fan#s#& 19812 noted that the politi#iIation of literat&re had had the effe#t of enlarging its a&dien#eA 3t Bo&ld be +isleading to s&ggest that +arket for#es prevailed, in literat&re, for not only did politi#al #onstraints and s&bsidies #ontin&e to operate b&t personalisti# ti#s #o&ld infl&en#e the siIe of a press r&n, as they #o&ld infl&en#e virt&ally anything in !o+ania. *evertheless, the proble+ of sales #eased to be the negligible #on#ern it had on#e been. Eriters Bhose Borks sold &n&s&ally Bell #o&ld e4pe#t presses to Bork hard to get their books, Bhi#h Bo&ld ens&re a press-s b&dget for the year, and to ignore the Borks of &nknoBn or esoteri# Briters. Under the neB <&asi%+arket #onditions, +any Briters/espe#ially yo&ng ones/had +ore diffi#&lty p&blishing than before. hey Bere by no +eans enth&siasti# abo&t being throBn onto the +arket fro+ the safe Bo+b of state s&bsidies, preferring, as one Briter a#knoBledged to +e, a state% s&pported art that ass&red Briters a #entral pla#e in so#iety and ins&lated the+ fro+ the +arket 0#f. S. and C. Farrard 1995, 18$%18:L HarasIti 198;L )onrad and 1Ielenyi 19;9, ;52. hese #ir#&+stan#es #reated proble+s for Briters on both sides of the debate. Be#a&se so+e novels and poetry of the proto#hronists sold &n&s&ally Bell, antiproto#hronist #riti#s harped on the <&estion of @standards@ a##ording to Bhi#h, they said, other Britings o&ght to be preferred. At the sa+e ti+e, proto#hronists/indeed, all artists/had reason to advo#ate prote#tionis+ of the internal literary and artisti# +arket, given that so#iologi#al resear#h fo&nd #ons&+ers of #&lt&re to favor Bestern prod&#ts overBhel+ingly. 0Dne national

s&rvey shoBed that a+ong !o+anians- +ost%loved a&thors Bas Al#4andr# '&+as, and that A+eri#an and E&ropean fil+s dreB by far the largest television a&dien#es.192 "ro+ this it #o&ld be ass&+ed that the instit&tions +ediating #&lt&ral prod&#tion/presses, #ine+as, (, and so forth/+ight prefer so+ething other than !o+anian prod&#ts, espe#ially &nder the r&les of self%finan#ing, and that Bitho&t so+e for+ of #&lt&ral prot##% 189 !D=A*3A* P!D DCH!D*31= tionis+ this preferen#e Bo&ld give !o+anian a&thors and artists feBer o&tlets for their Borks. Considerations s&#h as these #larify one pro%to#hronist-s #o+plaint that @so+e books abo&t -str&#t&ralis+- and -se+ioti#s- rot on the shelves Bhile others that #o&ld sell h&ndreds of tho&sands of #opies #ir#&late in r&ns of #onfidential siIe. Ee o&ght to do better -+arketing- and not no&rish people Bith <&estionable st&dies on Ba#helard@ 0Braes#& 1986:2. 3 s&spe#t that the inherent prote#tionis+ of the proto#hronist idea Bas not, as so+e +ight think, opport&nisti#ally +odeled &pon the prote#tionis+ of offi#ial e#ono+i# poli#y, both e4pressed a parti#&lar response to the proble+s inherent in their parti#&lar sit&ations. Altho&gh +y dis#&ssion so far has e+phasiIed the proble+s of politi#al and #&lt&ral independen#e and Briters- neB v&lnerability to +arket for#es, the arg&+ents that bro&ght these proble+s to the s&rfa#e Bere sat&rated as Bell Bith an obsession Bith literary val&es, hoB these are to be re#ogniIed, hoB they ar# tied to #ir#&lation and to <&ality, Bho deter+ines the+ and #hanges the+. he <&estion of val&e and str&ggles over it lay at the heart of the proto#hronis+ debate, the stakes being Bho Bo&ld establish #riteria of val&e Bithin the !o+anian literary #o++&nity. he #onse<&en#es of Binning the right to establish s&#h #riteria in#l&ded the poBer to +ake and &n+ake literary #areers and instit&tions, to pro+ote parti#&lar aestheti# or politi#al standards, and to infl&en#e the politi#s of #&lt&re set by the Party leadership. E4ploring these i+pli#ations of proto#hronis+ re<&ires, first, so+e knoBledge of the so#ial Borld of !o+anian literat&re and of the for#es s&pporting the rise of proto#hronis+ Bithin it.

!riters and )art& in Socia"ist (omania2;<

he history of Briters in C#a&s#s#&-s !o+ania otters an e4#ellent e4a+ple of hoB instit&tions #reated for one set of p&rposes/ to harness literary prod&#tion to the Bill of the Co++&nist party/be#a+e instr&+ents toBard a different end/preserving #ertain literary val&es that a s&bse<&ent Party leadership Bas intent on destroying. he +ost i+portant of these instit&tions Bas the !o+anian Eriters Union, 61 for+ed in 1999. 3n ea#h of the tBo liberaliIations of !o+anian #&lt&ral life/the s+all one folloBing 1talin-s death, and the +&#h larger one of the 19:5s, en#o&raged by C#a&ses#& as he atte+pted to !D=A*3A* P!D DCH!D*31= 18$ #onsolidate poBer/one parti#&lar gro&p 0Bhi#h 3 Bill #all fa#tion A 662 gained and e4panded #ontrol over the Union, in#reasing, as Bell, its presen#e in the Co++&nist party and in key positions related to p&blishing 0see Fabanyi 19;$, :;, 1:12. =any of these literary leaders had e4perien#ed years of fr&stration

and @so#ialist%realist@ #onstraints on p&blishing their Bork and Bere th&s rel&#tant to loosen their grip on leading roles. heir do&ble entren#h+ent at the top of the literary establish+ent #onstri#ted the #hannels of &pBard +obility, reso&r#es, and a##ess to privilege for other Briters 0ibid., 1:92, Bho Bo&ld for+ @fa#tion B.@ he blo#kage Bas only slightly #ased by ad+itting a feB neB fa#es into the literary leadership at the 19:8 Eriters Congress 0ibid., 191, 1:1L 1hafir 1987:, 9192, b&t +an&s#ripts re+ained ba#klogged and a&thors greB in#reasingly i+patient. '&ring the late 19:5s, the #o++&nity of Briters and #riti#s Bas in fer+ent, as yo&nger +e+bers so&ght even f&rther liberaliIation, pressing for the abolition of #ensorship, the end of the r&le of @Party ha#ks@ and @dog+atists@ over literary prod&#ts, and so forth. =&#h of the energy for the fer+ent #a+e fro+ the Party-s reintrod&#tion of national val&es into Bhat #o&ld be Britten. his redis#overy of @the *ation@ had a +arked effe#t on all those Bho had been so#ialiIed d&ring the internationalist 19$5sL +any of the+ Bere soon to appear on both sides of the proto#hronis+ debates. he enth&sias+ for liberaliIation Bo&ld probably have driven Briters even f&rther afo&l of the Party had not EarsaB pa#t troops invaded Prag&e in A&g&st of 19:8. 3n response to this, Cea&ses#& gave his fa+o&s spee#h #onde+ning the invasionL it Bas a gest&re that Bon hi+ +ore goodBill than #o&ld have been i+agined a short ti+e before, bringing into the Party inn&+erable intelle#t&als Bho had re#ently regarded the+selves as apoliti#al or even oppositionist. he liberaliIing fer+ent had had its #as&alties. he +ost signifi#ant Bas E&gen Barb&, an i+portant Briter and editor of a +aNor #&lt&ral p&bli#ation, later a +e+ber of the Central Co++itteeL he had a siIable folloBing a+ong a s&bset of the yo&nger Briters, soon to sBell the ranks of fa#tion B against those Bho had been responsible for Barb&-s doBnfall. 0Barb&-s #onne#tions saB to it that Bithin tBo years he re#eived the editorship of another #&lt&ral +agaIine. he Eeek, Bhi#h Bas to host proto#hronis+-s +ost egregio&s e4#esses.2 his polariIation of the literary #o++&nity Bith Barb& as rallying point Bas aggra% vated in 19;9, Bhen an a##&sation of plagiaris+ +obiliIed his s&pporters and sharpened still f&rther the #onfli#t betBeen the+ and his a##&sers. 18: !D=A*3A* P!D DCH!D*31= Pitted in opposition, then, Bere the poBerf&l fa#tion A and people like !arb& Bho had s&ffered fro+ its strength. "a#tion A Bas &nBilling to relin<&ish privileged positions or share hard%Bon per<&isitesL having finally +ade it to relatively easy p&bli#ation, good in#o+es, translations, trips abroad, and so on, they Bere noB reprod&#ing for neB #ohorts of Briters and #riti#s the sa+e pattern of blo#ked self%realiIation they the+selves had s&ffered in the 19$5s. Both !o+anian and foreign analysts of this period agree in seeing the fier#e literary battles of the late 19:5s and early 19;5s as only s&p#rfi#ially abo&t artisti# #on#eptions, the deeper #a&ses lying in str&ggles for a##ess to privilege 0se# Fabanyi 19;$, 191L Fheorghi& 198;, $82. "ro+ the @disenfran#hised@ neB generations of Briters #a+e +any of the re#r&its for fa#tion B, adding their #o+plaints to those of that fa#tion-s senior generation that felt itself to be e4#l&ded by the entren#hed Union leadership of fa#tion A. he events of the late 19:5s had fir+ly seated one Bing of the literary #o++&nity in positions of governan#e Bithin itL the @S&ly theses@ of 19;1 and the three years folloBing the+ provided the f&l#r&+ &pon Bhi#h the syste+i#

balan#e of poBer Bo&ld sloBly shift to the other fa#tion d&ring the 19;5s67/ the years of the rise of proto#hronis+. he @S&ly theses@ had tBo i+portant i+pli#ations for the str&#t&re ot opport&nity Bithin the literary Borld. hey +ade the leadership of the Eriters- Union even +ore an4io&s to hold onto its privileges, lest inf&sions of neB blood bring the Brong people into high positions, and they shoBed Briters eager for greater infl&en#e a neB #hannel thro&gh Bhi#h this +ight be a#hieved, spe#ialiIing in the prod&#tion of ide% ology 0for a neB sy+boli# +ode of #ontrol2 Bithin the literary field. 69 he latter possibility Bas soon +anifest, as Bithin tBo to three years the editorships of the largest%#ir#&lation #&lt&ral Beeklies passed into the hands of fa#tion B, Bhose brand of @refor+is+@ differed signifi#antly fro+ that of those in fa#tion A Bho had initiated the refor+ +ove+ent of the late 19:5s.6$ h&s, the field of for#es #ontained three +aNor players, the Party leadership, fa#tion A of the literary #o++&nity, do+inating the organiIations of literary prod&#tion 0the Union, &niversities2, and fa#tion B, the proto#hronists, allied Bith the Party leadership and in#reasing its hold over p&bli#ations and #ensorship/ the organs of diss#+ination and broad #&lt&ral infl&en#e. '&ring the 19;5s and s&bse<&ently, Party leadership and Union Bere lo#ked in battle over hoB +&#h independen#e the latter, Bith its a&tono+o&s f&nds and its #aref&lly honed de+o#rati# stat&tes, Bo&ld be per+itted. At the EritersConferen#es of 19;; and 1981, the !D=A*3A* 1-!D DCH!D*31= 18; Union s&##eeded in o&t+an#&v#ring at least so+e of Bhat the Party leadership intended for it, reNe#ting the Party-s first #hoi#e for president and installing its oBn governing #o&n#il in 19;;. 1i+ilarly independent +oves al+ost s&##eeded in 1981 as Bell, b&t the Party leadership +anaged to repla#e the president ele#ted in 19;;, Bho had be#o+e in#onvenient by insisting that the Party respe#t its oBn legal stat&tes on the Union. 6@ Proto#hronis+ Bas i+pli#ated in these battles, for by i+posing a r&le of se#ret ele#tions for delegates to the 1981 #onferen#e, the Union +e+bership +anaged to e4#l&de fro+ it all the +aNor fig&res asso#iated Bith that +ove+ent. 3n retaliation, the proto#hronists la&n#hed a #a+paign to have the Union dis+antled altogether 0se# beloB2. 1&bse<&ent atta#ks &pon the Union rendered it al+ost i+potent. Parts of the Union-s f&nds Bere froIen and th&s +ade &navailable for the very i+portant p&rposes they had served &ntil then 0s&pport of Briters Bho, for any of a n&+ber of reasons, did not have Borks in print, or p&bli#ation of books and No&rnals thro&gh the Union-s p&blishing ho&se2. he available f&nds tended to go to persons favored by those ad+inistering the+/in#reasingly, friends of the proto#hronists. After 1981, no +ore #onferen#es Bere alloBed despite a #on#erted effort by the Union-s governing #o&n#il. he Party i+posed/over fier#e opposition fro+ the +e+bers/neB +e+bership re<&ire+ents, in#l&ding approval by one-s lo#al Party organiIation and o##&pan#y of a salaried postL these &nder+ined the stat&s of Briter as a profession and red&#ed Britersindependen#e. J&estions of +e+bership be#a+e +oot, in any event, for the Party leadership al+ost Bholly obstr&#ted the ad+ission of neB +e+bers after 1981, lest the +e+bership be#o+e even +ore vigoro&sly oppositional. =eetings of the Union-s se#tions 0by geographi#al lo#ation and by spe#ialty/ poetry, prose, and so forth2 and of its governing #o&n#il Bere forbidden, sin#e s&#h +eetings #o&ld prod&#e neB s#he+es to o&ts+art the Party. hese

interdi#tions effe#tively paralyIed the Borkings of the organiIation, in#l&ding the aBard of literary priIes that Bo&ld set standards and for+ the literary #anon. Here, then, is the #onte4t in Bhi#h proto#hronis+ appeared and spread, a #risis in possibilities for &pBard +ove+ent and greater infl&en#e Bithin the e4isting literary establish+ent, res&lting in fa#tional XXggles Bithin the older generation and s&bse<&ent #ohorts of BritersL a +aNor shift in the Party leadership-s strategy of governan#e in 19;1.19;9, aBay fro+ liberaliIation, refor+, and d#+o#ratiIation and 188 !D=A*3A* P!D DCH!D*31= toBard greater e+phasis on ideology, for#e, and #entraliIationL and an e#ono+i# #risis that parado4i#ally in#reased +arket for#es for literary prod&#ts Bithin ongoing #entral #ontrol. he spread of proto#hronis+ Bas the sign of the str&ggle for poBer Bithin the literary establish+ent. Eithin this #onte4t, attention fo#&sed on hoB to establish the val&es for N&dging literary prod&#ts and Bhat relation they sho&ld have to the politi#al sphere. his +ade roo+ for a reordering of the hierar#hy of Briters a##ording to neBly as#endant #riteria. o p&t it differently, the deter+ination of val&e, and of the sy+boli# and #&lt&ral a&thority that rests &pon a##epting #ertain #riteria of val&e, Bere s&ddenly &p for grabs. Eriters Bho enNoyed rep&tations fro+ #&lt&ral a&thority a##&+&lated a##ording to aestheti# #riteria Bere noB v&lnerable to #hallenge fro+ those Bho, by setting #&lt&re to Bork for the Party-s sy+boli#%ideologi#al #ontrol +e#hanis+s, #o&ld +i4 #&lt&ral a&thority Bith politi#s toBard greater infl&en#e over #&lt&ral prod&#tion. he proto#hronis+ debates Bere the for+ taken by this neB #onN&n#t&re betBeen politi#s and #&lt&re.

)rotochronism and )o"itics THE DETERMINATION OF VALUE

he Bord @val&es@ appeared #o&ntless ti+es in the &tteran#es of people in all positions in the proto#hronis+ debate. Persons on all sides agreed on the basi# pre+ise that #&lt&ral prod&#ts have val&e, the only <&estion being to assess it properly.6; here Bas talk of @f&nda+ental !o+anian val&es,@ @referen#e points for national val&es,@ @the defense of o&r val&es,@ @the patri+ony of national val&es.@ Dne parti#ipant s&++ariIed the basi# iss&e behind proto#hronis+ as @Bhat is the +e#hanis+ for pro+oting and re#ogniIing val&esK Ehat is the +e#hanis+ for bringing the+ into the #&lt&ral #ons#io&sness of h&+ankindK@ 0=ar#&s, in Unghean& 198$, 9992. o so+e e4tent, proto#hronists saB this proble+ 0like that of international #ir#&lation2 as involving i+portation/the i+porting not N&st of foreign Britings, b&t of foreign standards of val&e, @Ee easily a##ept any foreign depre#ation, or a##lai+ N&st as easily any positive foreign appre#iation, as holding i++ediate a&thority. B&t Bhat is in <&estion is o&r val&es, Bhi#h Be o&rselves have to knoB hoB to appre#iate. . . .@ @3t is interesting that, avoiding all the !D=A*3A* P!D DCH!D*31= 189 gains of !o+anian #riti#is+ . . . appeal is +ade to foreign #riti#s/e4#ellent for their literat&res b&t not alBays appropriate for &s@ 0Un%ehean& 198$, 91$,

16:2. B&t 3 believe there Bas +ore to it than N&st another fa#et of prote#tionis+, for the <&otations +ake it #lear that so+e people are re#ogniIing and advo#ating those foreign standards, and it Bas those people and their val&es that proto#hronists intended to overthroB. Parti#ipants saB the <&estion of val&es as related inti+ately to the <&estion of #riti#is+. Everyone, it see+s, agreed that the role of literary #riti#is+ is to s&stain val&es, and that this role Bas not being properly served. "or e4a+ple, an antiproto#hronist defined #riti#is+ as @that Bhi#h +&st +aintain a vigil over the preservation of the dignity of val&e@ and @i+p#dUeV a+big&ity abo&t val&es@ b&t Bhi#h has @lightly #onsented to the installation of a state of #onf&sion and, Bhat is +ore, has #ontrib&ted to #onsolidating it@ 0'obr#s#& 1981, 72. And fro+ the other side, @"ar fro+ being a +inor <&arrel abo&t Bords, the proportions of UthisV #riti#al dialog&e obligate &s to rethink the entire history of o&r #&lt&re. . . . h&s, it is not a +atter N&st of senti+ental atta#h+ent b&t of the very stakes of #riti#is+ and, i+pli#itly, of #riti#s@ 0!a#hier& 198$, 7;2. his e#hoes Pap&-s insisten#e that proto#hronis+ had less to do Bith #reating literary val&es than Bith their re#ognition or re#eption 0ibid., 9$72. hat is, the proble+ Bas not in the sphere of prod&#tion b&t in Bho sits in N&dg+ent over the prod&#t. Ehy Bere val&es and #riti#is+ so #entral to these debatesK Be#a&se virt&ally every +aNor stake in literary life revolved aro&nd hoB its @val&es@ are to be denned, a highly #onfli#tf&l pro#ess. Criti#s have a f&nda+ental role in this pro#ess, for #riti#s ar# the persons Bho hold a so#ial +andate to prod&#e legiti+ate #lassifi#ations of artisti# val&e 0Bo&rdie& 1989, 682. Fiven that the role of #riti# is Bell instit&tionaliIed in literat&re above all, that field #o+es to serve as a kind of @#pist#+ologi#al poli#e@ for #&lt&ral prod&#tion in general 0Fheorghi& 198;, ;$ 2,68 denning and prote#ting val&es by pro+oting #ertain Borks into the #ategory of @val&es@ and e4#l&ding others. Criti#is+ and the val&es it sets, +oreover, for+ the basis for the re#ognition and f&rther a##&+&lation of #&lt&ral a&thority. herefore, any #ontest involving val&es inherently poses alternative gro&nds for s&#h a##&+&lation, #hallenging the basis &pon Bhi#h other a##&+&lations have been b&ilt. 3n so doing, it affe#ts not N&st individ&al literary #areers b&t the possibilities for a#<&iring p&bli# reso&r#es. his is be#a&se in a syste+ of s#ar#e and #entrally allo#ated reso&r#es, any gro&p seeking to a#<&ire the BhereBithal for an 195 !D=A*3A* P!D DCH!U*31= a#tivity +&st pers&asively arg&e that its version of that a#tivity is +ore representative of #ertain val&es than is the a#tivity of others, #lai+ing the sa+e reso&r#es on #o+parable gro&nds. Proto#hronis+ reveals, then, a str&ggle to #ontrol the definition of literary val&es/for stakes that Bere enor+o&s, the very fo&ndations of literary life. he iss&es thro&gh Bhi#h these stakes #o+e to light #an be separated into several parts, sales and priIes and press r&ns, deter+ining the literary @#anon@ for the present and f&t&re, infl&en#e Bithin the organiIations 0s&#h as the Eriters- Union2 that +ediated artisti# prod&#tion, infl&en#e over the b&rea&#ra#y that deter+ined #&lt&re-s e4isten#e, and a##ess to n&+ero&s i+portant so&r#es for a&g+enting #&lt&ral a&thority, Bhether this be #o+bined Bith or independent of politi#al stat&s. !elevant to this last point are <&estions of hoB #ogniIant p&bli#s ar# for+ed Bho re#ogniIe the #&lt&ral a&thority to

Bhi#h a Briter or #riti# +ight lay #lai+.

PRESS RUNS, LITERARY CANONS, AND INFLUENCE WITHIN THE WRITERS UNION
1o+e of the best eviden#e as to the stakes in this poBer str&ggle #o+es fro+ the #on#erns proto#hronists e4pressed in their Britings and intervieBs. Parti#&larly elo<&ent ar# those edited by P&r#ani, Bho provoked his interlo#&tors Bith leading <&estions abo&t hoB @#ertain #riti#s@ had atta#ked their Bork, and a set of intervieBs d&ring 1986/1987 in the Literary%Artisti# 1&pple+ent of the yo&ng people-s edition of the !o+anian Party daily 01#inteia tineret&l&i2X Bhi#h Bas the la&n#hing pad for the assa&lt on the EritersUnion, +entioned above. A +aNor set of #on#erns Bas a##ess to print. Altho&gh this proble+ loo+ed parti#&larly large in proto#hronist Britings, it Bas not N&st theirs b&t Bas also e4pressed to +e by Briters a#ross the f&ll spe#tr&+ of positions. Proto#hronists #o+plained abo&t the distrib&tion of spa#e for literary #riti#is+ in No&rnals, inade<&ate for e4pressing the f&ll range of opinions, and they #alled for a neB No&rnal solely for #riti#is+ 0Pir&, in !o+ania literara 19;;, 92. @ he absen#e of a larger fra+eBork for a#tivity, the la#k of a s&ffi#ient n&+ber of #ol&+ns for literary #riti#is+ and of #riti#al debates prevents the f&ll intelle#t&al potential of o&r literary history and #riti#is+ fro+ being realiIed@ 0Ungh#an&, in !o+ania Ute++ 19;;, 92. Persons of all kinds obNe#ted to the diffi#&lty of getting long%Britten books p&blished Bhile @#ertain Briters@ #log &p #di% !D=A*3A* 1-!D DCH!.D*31= 191 torial plans Bith +an&s#ripts not even beg&n 0see, e.g., Braes#& 1986a2. @Books abo&t str&#t&ralis+ and se+ioti#s rot on the shelves Bhile others that #o&ld sell h&ndreds of tho&sands of #opies #ir#&late in #onfidential r&ns@ 0Braes#& 1986Y2. Asked Bhy all his books had appeared Bith diffi#&lty, after five% and si4%year delays, one Briter replied that @ideologi#al@ referees had #o+plained that his Borks la#ked aestheti# val&e or Bere politi#ally irresponsible69 0Braes#& 1986ri2. Altho&gh the #o+plaints N&st #ited Bere all fro+ proto#hronists, +any #o&ld have #o+e fro+ the +o&ths of their opponents as Bell, e<&ally #on#erned abo&t delays, the siIe of press r&ns, and the n&+ber of No&rnals 0see, e.g., =anol#s#&, in P&r#ar& 198:, 1982. hey refle#t real and &nderstandable fr&stration at the red&#ed n&+ber of p&bli#ations and the stiff #o+petition to get one-s Borks into print, a pro#ess in Bhi#h it Bas insin&ated that @#ertain #riti#s@ or Briters had &nd&e infl&en#e 0even tho&gh the real #a&se lay in the Party-s #&lt&ral poli#y2. Another so&r#e of irritation in proto#hronists- Britings Bas the +atter of priIes, revieBs, and privileges. hey spoke often of persons Bhose Bork o&ght to have re#eived a literary priIe b&t to Bho+ #riti#s had responded Bith a @s&rprising silen#e.@ 1everal #o++entators aired the s&spi#ion that not deserving Borks b&t parti#&lar persons re#eive 0or are denied2 the priIe 0e.g., P&r#ar& 198:, 1;8, 7682/that is, biased N&ries give priIes to their friends/ and another #o+plained that priIes alBays see+ to go to the @+odernists@ rather than to people like hi+self 0>a+fires#& 1986a, ;2. 75 All&sions to the

@#onspira#y of silen#e@ by @#ertain #riti#s@ and their @literary <&arantine@ of vario&s 0proto#hronist2 Briters a##o+panied #o+plaints that the revieB se#tions of @#ertain@ No&rnals ar# held in a +onopoly grip. Ehen it Bas not silen#e that rankled, it Bas negative revieBs, or positive revieBs of Briters seen as deservedly obs#&re 0ibid.2. here Bere obNe#tions that @#ertain #riti#s@ like to legislate Bhat s&bNe#ts ar# &ns&ited, on aestheti# gro&nds, to literary #reations, history, everyday so#ial iss&es, and so forth. All these #o++ents +entioned parti#&lar #riti#al val&es that Bere hindering broad p&bli# re#ognition of and a##eptan#e of proto#hronists-- Bork and obstr&#ting their a##ess to the privileges that Bo&ld #o+e Bith priIes and aBards. 7- 1o+e +entioned overtly the +edals and +aterial advanages of the old%g&ard @dog+atists@ of fa#tion A 0P&r#ar& 198:, 7662. A third stake in the poBer str&ggle Bas #ontrol over the literary histories, #o+pendia, di#tionaries, anthologies, and espe#ially the s#hool +an&als/in a Bord, over deter+ining the literary @#anon.@ 1everal proto#hronists Bere distressed that @+aNor literary val&es@ Bere being 196 !D=A*3A* P!D DCH!D*31= e4#l&ded fro+ the #ons#io&sness of s#hool#hildr#n, Bho Bo&ld spend lifeti+es Bith a @distorted-@ i+age of !o+ania-s tr&e literary #anon. o prevent this, they de#lared, the Briters of s#hool te4ts +&st be obNe#tive and nonpartisan 0e.g., P&r#ar& 198:, 6$82. Dne parti#ipant s&ggested that the best people to Brite s&#h +an&als are not ne#essarily &niversity professors b&t, preferably, literary historians or #riti#s 0ibid., 6:72L this proto#hronist #o+plaint refle#ts the #ontin&ed preponderan#e of their opponents/19:5s @liberals@ and @old dog+atists@/in the +aNor &niversity #hairs. Proto#hronists Borried not N&st over the a&thors of s#hool +an&als and Bho+ they have in#l&ded or left o&t b&t also over the persons #hosen as +an&s#ript referees, @Co& Bill so+eti+es find that they are the sa+e na+es, the s+all and -large di#tators- di#tating, &nfort&nately, in this do+ain as Bell@ 0ibid., 1$92. A s&stained assa&lt on the proble+ of the literary #anon appeared in an arti#le in he Eeek, entitled @Eho Ed&#ates the ea#hers@ 0 &dor 19812. his arti#le begins by saying that everyone is entitled to an opinion abo&t books, b&t personal opinions sho&ld not enter into offi#ial +an&als &sed in instr&#ting p&pils. 1ingling o&t 0antiproto#hronist2 #riti# and &niversity professor *i#ola# =anol#s#& as the g&iding light of a parti#&lar +an&al, &dor goes on to deno&n#e the in#l&sions in this +an&al as having @reBritten a neB order for !o+anian literat&re, that a##ords long%standing val&es a lesser i+portan#e than others that the passage of ti+e has not yet #onse#rated definitively in #ither national or larger ter+s.@ He lists #onte+porary Briters the +an&al leaves o&t and others &ndeservedly given +&#h #overage/people like syn#hronist E&gen Lovin#s#&, for e4a+ple/and he deplores the li+ited #overage of Briters like E+ines#& in #ontrast Bith the e4tensive treat+ent of #ertain #onte+porary a&thors. E4pressing his alar+ that =anoles#& is on the editorial board of the s#hool +an&als for +ore than one high%s#hool grade, he says, @U he proble+ isV the per+anent tea#hing ot these year after year, in s&##essive grades .... Ehen the p&pil sees that year after year, thro&gho&t the final years of high s#hool, the sa+e people and biographies re#&r, he Bill nat&rally #on#l&de that the old #lassi#s ar# o&tdated and are not really all that #lassi#.@ He ends his broadside by a##&sing the +an&al of @rendering old errors

per+anent and serving the+ &p to the yo&nger generation in neB pa#kaging as the proper set of val&es for &nderstanding !o+anian #iviliIation. By Bhat #riteria are the a&thors of s#hool +an&als designatedK@ 0 &dor 19812. hat &dor Bas #hallenging the pro#ess Bhereby !o+ania-s literary #anon is fi4ed #o&ld s#ar#ely be #learer. !D=A*3A* P!D DCH!D*31= 197 his proble+ Bas per#eived fro+ the other side as Bell. "or over a de#ade, a tea+ of Briters and #riti#s &nder &niversity professor =ir##a >a#i&, in Cl&N, labored over a 'i#tionary of !o+anian Literat&re. Eork on it stalled in the +id% 1985s oBing to endless fights, instigated fro+ o&tside the Bork #olle#tive, as to Bho sho&ld be in#l&ded and Bho o+itted fro+ the di#tionary. By report of so+e involved in the proNe#t, a +aNor iss&e Bas Bhether to in#l&de @#ertain politi#al fig&res.@ he #olle#tive balked, saying it Bas #on#erned only Bith literary val&es, not politi#s. A##ording to +y intervieBees, persons Bell%pla#ed politi#ally, at the instigation 0it Bas s&spe#ted2 of leading proto#hronists, obNe#ted to the p&bli#ation of a Bork Bith @all these na+es, all these #onse#rated val&es.@ he book-s p&blisher defended it to the hilt &ntil #onvin#ed by @high #ir#les@ that it Bo&ld never fly, and even tho&gh the entire h&ge +an&s#ript had been typeset and Bas in galleys, the fonts Bere +elted and the vol&+e dropped. >a#i&-s tea+ saB this as the de#isive defeat of the antiproto#hronist #anon. =aking alloBan#es for the s&bNe#tivis+ of both this a##o&nt@ and the p&blished ones referred to above, it is nevertheless #lear that the @#onse#ration of literary val&es@ had be#o+e a great privilege in Cea&s#s#&-s !o+ania, one over Bhi#h there Bas a fight to the death. A&thors #o+plained of #onstant di+in&tion in the n&+ber of books of literary #riti#is+ that Bere in#l&ded in p&bli#ation plans, and they des#ribed to +e the s&bterf&ges thro&gh Bhi#h they +ight get a book of #riti#is+ p&blished by insisting that it belonged in so+e #ategory other than #riti#is+. Ehat Bas at iss&e in this disp&te/a disp&te involving +ore than N&st vario&s kinds of Briters and #riti#s b&t high f&n#tionaries as Bell/Bas the instit&tionaliIation of ideas of val&e. hese Bo&ld shape the definition of #&lt&ral a&thority and the so&r#es of past #&lt&ral prod&#tion &pon Bhi#h a person-s literary rep&tation +ight b&ild. hey Bo&ld shape, as Bell, the ter+s in Bhi#h people #o&ld appeal s&##essf&lly for s&pport of their a#tivities/hoB to arg&e Bith a press editor, Bith a #ensor, Bith a govern+ent +inister, and hoB to appeal to the p&bli#. Phrasing the str&ggle in this Bay enables &s to se# Bhy it engaged s&#h intense and gen&ine passions on both sides of the debate, for people-s entire life%Bork, their self%i+age as professionals, and their notion of their #ontrib&tion to h&+an #reativity, Bere all at stake. (al&e is instit&tionaliIed not only thro&gh deter+ining an artisti# #anon b&t also thro&gh the organiIations that +ediate the prod&#tion of #&lt&re/in !o+ania, the Eriters- Union, the Union of Plasti# Arts, 199 !D=A*3A* P!D DCH!D*31= the Co+posers- and =&si#ians- Unions. Df these the Eriters- Union Bas by far the +ost i+portant, despite the serio&s erosion of its a&thority and reso&r#es d&ring the 1985s. o have a position in this organiIation, Bith its oBn press and its Literary "&nd, +eant the #han#e to infl&en#e the kinds and a+o&nts of

things to be p&blished, the for+ation of #o++ittees that Bo&ld Brite s#hool +an&als and give o&t literary priIes, the disposition of the several +agaIines p&blished &nder the Union-s aegis, and so forth. A str&ggle to #ontrol the Eriters- Union Bas one of the +ost i+portant iss&es e4pressed thro&gh proto#hronis+. he str&ggle Bas evident in #on#erted atta#ks by proto#hronists &pon the Union-s very str&#t&re. Dne finds n&+ero&s #riti#is+s of its leadership, obli<&ely a##&sed of obstr&#ting Bithin the Union the @large pro#ess of de+o#ratA Iation taking pla#e elseBhere in !o+anian so#iety,@ of having +ade itself into a @#o&n#il of the Bise,@ a ---self%#onstit&ted +andarinat#.@ Proto#hronists #alled for rotation of offi#es and for de#entraliIing both the Union and its +aterial +eans, so that these do not rest in N&st a feB hands @Bhi#h ar# not even the +ost hard%Borking@ 0P&r#ar& 198:, ;6, 11$, 1$:2. Dne #riti# obNe#ted to the Union-s fail&re to +ake a for+al and p&bli# reNoinder to the defa+atory #a+paigns led fro+ abroad against #ertain books and #ertain Briters 0a referen#e to !adio "ree E&rope-s #a+paign against proto#hronis+2. he #riti# vieBed this as &rgently re<&iring a #olle#tive defense, be#a&se of its i+pli#ations for the all%i+portant entry of !o+anian Britings into the international #ir#&it of #&lt&ral val&es 0ibid., ;62. here Bere also #o+plaints abo&t hoB to a#hieve Union +e+bership. hese not only refle#ted the proto#hronists- resent+ent at their voting +inority b&t also, 3 s&spe#t, ai+ed at re#r&iting yo&ng Briters fr&strated by the long and diffi#&lt pro#ess that +e+bership had be#o+e 0oBing, of #o&rse, not to Union leaders b&t to restri#tions i+posed fro+ the Party #enter, b&t this fa#t Bent &n+entioned2. he atta#k Bas even +ore dire#t in the 1986 intervieBs in the Party-s Co&th daily, +entioned above. *early every Beek there appeared so+e negative #o++ent abo&t the Union, Bhose leaders @treat it as their personal fief@ 0Braes#& 1986Y2, and Bhose +eetings ar# allegedly pre#eded by #orr&pt ba#kroo+ b&ying and selling of votes in Bhi#h @so%#alled intelle#t&als behave like ele#toral traffi#kers@ 0Braes#& 1986ff2. he &nions Bere a##&sed of elitis+, he str&#t&res of the &nions for artisti# and #reative life have not #hanged in thirty years. =onopoly of poBer, ab&se of poBer ill the area or #reation, +o% !D=A*3A* P!D DCH!D*31= 19$ nopoly on opinions and ab&se of opinions, all perpet&ated via long ter+s of offi#e/these ar# die realities, the effe#ts of these en#ysted, dog+ati# str&#t&res, and the #a&ses of dog+ati# and elitist pheno+ena. And above all, this #n#yst%+#nt is fir+ly +aintained in parallel Bith the s&spe#t and <&estionable efforts at @+oderniIation,@ at @syn#hronis+@ and @avant% gardis+.@ Ee +&st de#entraliIe this e4#essively #entraliIed organiIational str&#t&re, valid only Bhen it Bas for+ed thirty years ago. Ee +&st @syn#hroniIe@ it Bith the tr&e state of eon%te+porary !o+anian so#ialist de+o#ra#y 0Braes#& 1986#2. Another intervieBee Bent on at even greater length abo&t hoB the Union offers sine#&res to people Bho #reate nothing and ar# a spe#ies of rentiers, parasiti# on the Bork of others Bho #ontrib&te #ons#io&sly to b&ilding &p the revol&tionary ideologi#al artisti# heritage. his Briter also obNe#ted that the Literary "&nd of the Eriters- Union is sBelled by re#eipts fro+ a s+all n&+ber

of people Bhose books sell e4#eedingly Bell and Bho thereby s&pport a large fa&na of @stipendiaries@ and &n#reativ# parasites. hat an organiIed #a+paign had been taking pla#e Bas ni#ely signaled by the last intervieB in the series, in Bhi#h proto#hronist >a+fires#& anno&n#ed his la#k of solidarity Bith @those Bho led the #a+paign against the Union and the Literary "&nd,@ likening the+ to peasants Bho seek to rid the barn of +i#e by b&rning it doBn 0!ra#s#& 1986X2. he ter+s of this #a+paign/talk of the need for @d#+o#ratiIation@ and @de#entraliIation@/shoB hoB #o+ple4 the battle had be#o+e. !eading these te4ts, one +ight think that p#r#stroika had +ade an &ne4pe#ted and pre+onitory 0proto#hrono&sA2 appearan#e in !o+anian literary life of the early 1985s. Cet the obNe#tive of proto#hronist reproa#hes Bas not a so#ietal restr&#t&ring b&t an atte+pt to break doBn, thro&gh an @indig#ni4#d =ar4ist@ rhetori#, an organiIation do+inated by a different fa#tion a#tively +aintaining rep&tations and standards of val&e that the #hallengers Bished to overt&rn. Ehat prevailed in the broader politi#al #onte4t Bas Bholly the opposite of d#+o#ratiIation and de#entraliIation. he N&dg+ent one pla#es on this talk of de#entraliIation Bill depend on hoB one assesses the syste+i# tenden#ies being pro+oted by the Bork of the different fa#tions, a point to be taken &p again beloB. Con#erning the ter+s of arg&+ent +ore broadly, those relevant to +aking the points dis#&ssed so far/abo&t press r&ns, setting the literary #anon, and infl&en#e Bithin the Eriters- Union/involved not only notions abo&t the +arket b&t so+e of the Beapons of str&ggle dis% 19: !D=A*3A* P!D DCH!D*31= #&ssed in #hapter 9. Proto#hronists +ade fre<&ent &se of notions fro+ the =ar4ist #riti<&e of #apitalis+, t&rned to the servi#e of their oBn goals/ referen#e to @rentiers@ and @literary profiteers,---- for e4a+ple, to des#ribe the @elitists@ at the head of the Union, @ he Union has gone fro+ being the property of the #o++&nity to being that of a gro&p of a#tionaries Bho invest very little and in e4#hange e4ploit to the +a4i+&+ .... U3t +&st ret&rn toV dedi#ating itself to the ideologi#al and professional effort a##ording to absol&tely #olle#tive #riteria@ 0Bra#s#& 1986.2. he s&ggestion that opponents are @dog+atises@ and 4#nophil#s l&rks Bithin referen#es to their being @Bell oiled Bith vodka before their +eetings@ 0Bra#s#& 1986:2/@vodka@ 0rather than !o+anian t&i#a V pl&+ brandyV or "ren#h #ogna#2 signalling stalinophilia. =any of these te4ts also have overt a##&sations of @dog+atis+@ and @prolet#&ltis+,@ and of antiproto#hronist @E&rop#anis+@ as denying the val&es of the national #hara#ter. Antiproto#hronists, for their part, also #alled their opponents @dog%+atists@ and @n#oprolet#&ltists@ 0see, e.g., Frig&r#& 1981, 62, in referen#e not to the 1talinist s&ppression of national val&es b&t to the #onte+porary #onta+ination of aestheti# #riteria by politi#s/#hara#teristi#, they said, of proto#hronis+. =ore #o++on, hoBever, Bas antiproto#hronist representation of their opponents as fas#ists. his Bas a##o+plished above all by labeling the #onte+porary debate over proto#hronis+ a res&s#itation of the interBar str&ggles betBeen @tradi%tionalists@ and @+odernists,@ #orresponding respe#tively to proto#hronists and their opponents 0e.g., Cond&ra#h# 1981L 'obr#s#& 1981L A. Qtef[nes#& 19812. he effe#t Bas so+eti+es sharpened by

referring to latter%day @a&to#hthonis+.@ 1in#e +ost of the interBar @traditionalists@ had been e4e#rated or i+prisoned as fas#ists, the +essage behind these labels Bas &n+istakable. 0 he asso#iation Bas rendered e4pli#it in !ad&l#s#& U198:, 17V, the only antiproto#hronist Bith s&ffi#ient politi#al #lo&t to +ake s&#h an a##&sation o&t lo&d.2 3ts hoped%for effe#t Bas to dis<&alify the @neB traditionalists@ in the eyes of both p&bli# and b&rea&#ra#y, for the rhetori# 0if not also the senti+ent2 of opposition to fas#is+ re+ained strong in Cea&s#s#&-s !o+ania. Beyond the stakes #on#erning literary val&e, p&rs&ed #hiefly thro&gh a##&sations of dog+atis+ and fas#is+, there Bere additional stakes #on% #erning the gro&nds &pon Bhi#h #&lt&ral a&thority sho&ld be re#ogniIed and a##&+&lated. Altho&gh the sa+e rhetori#al Beapons served those battles as Bell, this set of iss&es shoBs espe#ially #learly hoB !D=A*3A* P!D DCH!D*31= 19; #harges of @elitis+@ and the te#hni<&e of genealogi#al appropriation Bere &sed to b&ild one-s oBn #lai+s to #&lt&ral a&thority and to &nder+ine one-s opponents.

CULTURAL AUTHORITY, ELITISM, AND GENEALOGICAL APPROPRIATIONS

3 have s&ggested at several points that hoB literary val&es are deter+ined is #losely tied Bith establishing a Briter-s or #riti#-s a&thority in the Borld of #&lt&re. o establish #&lt&ral or #reative a&thority Bas one +eans of gaining entry into and advantage Bithin !o+ania-s #&lt&ral politi#sL the other Bas politi#al title or infl&en#e, Bhose holders also atte+pted to #onvert even that into a #lai+ to re#ognition in #&lt&ral ter+s. !e#ogniIed #&lt&ral a&thority Bas essential to #lai+ing #&lt&ral repres#ntativeness, or to dis#o&rses abo&t @a&thenti#ity,@ Bhi#h Bere i+portant Beapons in the horiIontal #o+petition for #entral reso&r#es. 3n other Bords, one of the relevant p&bli#s for a #lai+ to #&lt&ral a&thority Bas the b&rea&#rats Bho i+ple+ented the state-s #&lt&ral poli#y. Another possible p&bli# Bas the readership to Bhi#h novels, poetry, and #riti#is+ had to appeal &nder the #onditions of @self%finan#ing.@ Eith the debate over proto#hronis+, both of these p&bli#s be#a+e obNe#ts of #o+petition, their tastes had to be for+ed s&#h that they Bo&ld re#ogniIe one rather than another set of #lai+s. o &se the ter+ proposed in #hapter 9, they had to be rendered #ogniIant p&bli#s. A @#ogniIant p&bli#@ is one that re#ogniIes and a#knoBledges the bases &pon Bhi#h an elite +akes a #lai+ to s&perior stat&s. heir re#ognition depends &pon a##epting the val&es that &nderlie s&#h a #lai+/ val&es of stri#t adheren#e to professional standards, for e4a+ple, or val&es of patriotis+ as prior to p&rely aestheti# #riteria. Ehen these val&es ar# #ontested, the for+ation of #ogniIant p&bli#s oriented to the+ #an be#o+e a #ontest also. his +ay be a f&n#tion of str&ggles Bithin an elite relating to its i++ediate environ+ent or +ay res&lt fro+ #hanges in the so#ial order in Bhi#h a given elite-s position is e+beddedL in Cea&s#s#&-s !o+ania, both of these obtained. =e+bers of !o+ania-s #&lt&ral elite therefore had tBo reasons 0their opposition to ea#h other, and the revol&tionary goals of the !o+anian Party2 for #o+peting to for+ their oBn #ogniIant p&bli#s, re#eptive to the+ as alternative bearers of #&lt&ral a&thority based in different val&es. 3n this

#ontest the 198 !D=A*3A* P!D DCH!D*31= antipr&t&#hronists Bere in +&#h the Beaker position, oBing to the others@s&perior a##ess to +ass +edia. he #o++&nists- vast e4tension of ed&#ation sin#e 1999 #ontrib&ted +&#h to a potential re#onfig&ring of so#ial re#ognition. 1o+e a#knoBledg+ent of this appears in the folloBing proto#hronist state+ent, After 1999, Bhen the Borking #lass took poBer, the possibility of a +aNor poli% ti#s of !o+anian #&lt&re appeared for the first ti+e. @ he Borker spirit@ +eant, #on#retely, the possibility for any speaker of !o+anian to be able to read his Briters, thro&gh eradi#ating illitera#y, . . . thro&gh #alling die entire people to #&lt&ral life 0>a+fires#& 19;$, 992. Co++&nist r&le also #ontrib&ted the notion that #&lt&ral @elitis+@ is a bad thing and sho&ld dis<&alify those g&ilty of it fro+ so#ial re#ognition. Ehen proto#hronists a##&sed their opponents of elitis+, as they so often did, they Bere partly addressing one or both of the #ogniIant p&bli#s Bhose tastes they Bished to for+. o affir+ their oBn allegian#e to the +asses and their respe#t for the intelligen#e of #o++on people, Bhile a##&sing others of elitis+, ai+ed to reed&#ate those in the a&dien#e Bho +ight be partial to the E&ropean val&es others Bere espo&sing. Proto#hronists de#ried the elitis+ that resisted patrioti# poetry, politi#al poetry, and literat&re Bith r&ral the+es 0re#all the p#asantis+ favored by interBar traditionalists2. @Literary elitis+ . . . detests -pas%t&ris+- and, nat&rally, dislikes the dire#tion for+erly taken by Ua pop&list interBar neBspaperV, Bhose ai+ Bas o&r obligation to the people@ 0P&r#a+ 198:, ::%:;2. he +essage to a #ogniIant p&bli# is that it sho&ld reNe#t the sorts of readings offered by these @elitists,@ Bho allegedly hold the intelligen#e of #o++on readers and the val&es of r&ral folk in #onte+pt. "or+ing a #ogniIant p&bli# in#l&des not only @#iviliIing@ the p&bli# into one-s preferred val&es and s&staining its atta#h+ent to the+ b&t also, so+eti+es, n% #iviliIing it, for+ing neB #ogniIan#es for a p&bli# already #ogniIant Bithin a given distrib&tion of val&es. hat is, for+ing #ogniIant p&bli#s in literat&re +ay entail not only tea#hing people to read b&t tea#hing the+ rereadings, in relation to Bhi#h one-s oBn reading Bill a#<&ire greater a&thority than the readings of other spe#ialists. his point Bas re#ogniIed in an early state+ent abo&t proto#hronis+, @Proto#hronis+ proposes a -#orre#tion- of +ethod and an e4er#ise ot ele+entary aestheti# 0re2ed&#ation. - he professor +&st ret&rn to the #lassroo+- ...@ 03. Constantin#s#& 19;;, 92. 1&#h r#r#adings o##&pied a #entral pla#e in the proto#hronist !D=A*3A* P!D DCH!D*31= 199 agenda. An e4#ellent e4a+ple is the one treated in the pre#eding #hapter 3li# Bades#&-s re#asting of Conservative%party stalBart and !o+anti# poet E+ines#& into a radi#al so#iologist. Bad#s#& Bas not alone in rereading the poet in Bays that +itigated one or another proble+ati# aspe#t of his Bork, aside fro+ Pap&-s 019;;2 rereading of E+ines#& as a pre#o#io&s e4istential philosopher, abs&rdist, and Briter of free verse, other s#holars Borked to #leanse hi+ of the taint of 4enophobia and antis#+itis+ 0e.g., Pop#s#& 198;2. his effort Bas not restri#ted to proto#hronists, for their opponents too had to

#reate an a##eptable E+ines#& to in#l&de in their oBn alternative lineages. 1in#e no one%#o&ld afford to be #onsidered a d#nigrator of !o+ania-s best poet, all had to reread E+ines#& and to so#ialiIe their p&bli#s into neB val&es for assessing hi+. 3t Bas an integral part of s&staining their oBn rep&tations and, thro&gh this, of fighting for the literary val&es they believed in. he sa+e pro#ess o##&rred not N&st thro&gh r#r#adings b&t thro&gh reediting Borks of earlier !o+anian Briters and thinkers/and this proved to be yet another arena for proto#hronis+-s #hallenge to the val&es of its opponents. '&ring the 19;5s and 1985s, r##ditions fro+ the interBar period in parti#&lar be#a+e so #o++on that Borks fro+ those earlier years o##&pied a large per#entage of the shelf spa#e in bookstores. Proto#hronist Britings +ade it #lear that these re#ditions Bere far fro+ ne&tral a#tivities, several people #o+plained that @so+eone@ Bas blo#king proNe#ts to rep&blish the Borks of one or another i+portant Briter of the past 0e.g., 'iXa 1988L P#lin 1987L P&r#ar& 198:, 11;%118,166%169, 188, 76$2.77 1&#h a #harge Bas one Bay of insin&ating that one-s opponents did not share @f&nda+ental !o+anian val&es-@ and +&st therefore be dog+atists, aliens, traitors, or otherBise #&lt&rally &nrepresentative. he re%p&blishing of older great Borks began, in fa#t, before Eorld Ear 33 &nder state sponsorship b&t Bas interr&pted by the i+position of 1oviet%style so#ialis+. "or the initial years of Co++&nist party r&le, +any intelle#t&al fig&res fro+ the !o+anian past Bere #astigated and their Britings s&ppressed as rea#tionary, bo&rgeois, ra#ist, #ha&vinist, and Borse. Persons Bho in their Britings or their politi#al a#tivities had been asso#iated Bith #onservative #&rrents s&ffered parti#&larly &nder this regi+e. 1o+e of the+, s&#h as the poet and philosopher L&#ian Blaga, Bere still alive and saB their f&t&res, on#e ass&redly brilliant, #rash abo&t their #ars. 0Blaga Bent fro+ being a fa+ed and ad+ired professor of philosophy at Cl&N University to Borking as a +inor f&n#% tionary in the library, his old books banned and his neB ones &np&b% 655 !D=A*3A* P!D DCH!D*31= lished.2 he only past fig&res Bho+ one #o&ld invoke in s&pport of present ideas Bere the preBar so#ialists, of Bho+ there Bere in#onveniently feB. Even before 1talin-s death, hoBever, and +ore so after it, !o+anian intelle#t&als both inside and o&tside the Party/espe#ially so+e leaders of the Eriters- Union/began to p&sh for rela4ation of these stri#t&res and for sele#tive restoration of past national val&es. "or e4a+ple, in 19$7 the president of the Eriters- Union 0a #o++&nist a#tive in the%neB regi+e sin#e its in#eption2 Brote an arti#le #alling on the Party to r#p&blish +ore !o+anian #lassi#s and #riti#iIing prol#t#&ltist e4#esses that had s&ppressed the+ 0(ran#ea 19;$, 66$%66:2. BetBeen 19$7 and 19$: the Borks of #ertain interBar Briters began to appear 0altho&gh +any of the +ost i+portant prod&#ts and thinkers of that period re+ained &nder interdi#tion UFabanyi 19;$, $$, $9/:5W2, and the 19$: Eriters- Conferen#e a#t&ally for+aliIed the idea of @sele#tive #ontin&ity@ Bith respe#t to the intelle#t&al heritage 0!a#hi#r& 198$, 1:2. "olloBing a hiat&s fro+ 19$8 to 19:7 or so, ever +ore Borks and Briters reent#r#d the p&bli# real+. A+idst the r&sh to r##dit earlier Borks, hoBever, ti#klish proble+s Bere en#o&ntered that delayed #ertain r##ditions. Perhaps the +ost deli#ate of all

#on#erned !o+anians- greatest poet, E+ines#&, already +entioned above and in #hapter 9. A+ong the reasons Bhy r#p&bli#a%tion of his #orp&s posed serio&s diffi#&lties Bere not only his Conservative%party asso#iations and hints of antis#+itis+ b&t his violently anti%!&ssian senti+ents. =any Briters resisted dis#reet s&ppression of parts of his Bork, for finally freed of the harshest #ensorship, they #o&ld not #o&ntenan#e its i+position &nder any prete4t. h&s, even those &n%#nth&siasti# abo&t E+ines#&-s No&rnalisti# Britings fo&nd the+selves s&pporting the p&bli#ation of his entire #orp&s, leaving it to high Party a&thorities to pi#k their Bay thro&gh the res&ltant thi#ket. 3n the #onte4t of deli#ate de#isions s&#h as those #on#erning E+ines#& and other great fig&res Bith a history of rightist asso#iations, proto#hronists liked to insin&ate that delays in r#p&blishing those Borks #o&ld only be e4plained as obstr&#tion fro+ the left/+eaning, as any !o+anian reader Bo&ld knoB, resid&al @dog+atists@ of the late 1995s and early 19$5s, the #onte+porary e&phe+is+ for antiproto#hronists.79 his left had in#l&ded a disproportionate n&+ber of SeBs and other national +inoritiesL its #onte+porary fa+iliars Bere thereby #ast as &n%!o+anian, &npatrioti#, <&ite evident in their alleged s&ppression of the Borks of great patrioti# Briters. HoB ar# the reeditions related to proto#hronis+ and to the +atter !D=A*3A* P!D DCH!D*31= 651 of #&lt&ral a&thorityK 3n an obli<&e referen#e to proto#hronis+, Fheorghi& s&ggests 0198;, 852 that it nationaliIed #&lt&ral #apital by reestablishing internal genealogies, any proto#hronist #lai+ for priority of one or another !o+anian a&thor Bo&ld in#orporate both the a&thor and the intelle#t&al #&rrent he pre#eded 0the Baro<&e, !o+anti#is+, #yberneti#s, and so forth2 into the lineage of !o+anian prod&#ers of #&lt&re, fo&nders of lo#al bran#hes of #&lt&ral #apital a##&+&lation. he <&estion of reeditions, hoBever, s&ggests that +atters Bere +ore #o+ple4 than this. o be s&re, a proto#hronist de+onstration did nationaliIe #&lt&ral #apital, and it did so by an e4tended invo#ation of a na+e, linked in this Bay Bith a parti#&lar intelle#t&al lineage. 1&#h invo#ations ar# a #o++on devi#e Bhereby s#holars and Briters in all fields and #o&ntries bring fa+o&s prede#essors into their intelle#t&al gene% alogies. B&t to reedit a Bork is +ore than +erely to invoke a na+e, it is to bind oneself te4t&ally in e4tenso to the Bords and intentions of another a&thor /a pro#ed&re by Bhi#h one re#&perates a great deal of the #&lt&ral a&thority those Bords #ontain. !eeditings involved, then, genealogi#al appropriations that also appropriated #&lt&ral a&thority, thereby a&g+enting the a##&+&lated a&thority of the self%appointed @heir@ and of the lineage of persons and val&es he #lai+ed as his oBn.7$ o #larify +y +eaning, 3 +ake perhaps &northodo4 &se ofBakhtin-s notion of do&ble%voi#ed dis#o&rse. A do&ble%voi#ed dis#o&rse is defined as an &tteran#e that has an internal relationship to so+eone els#-s dis#o&rse 01989, 18:2. Bakhtin s&ggests that any &tteran#e having its oBn intention +ay be +ade the obNe#t of another &tteran#e, being in#orporated into the se#ond &tteran#e in the servi#e of a different set of intentions. 1o+eti+es the intentions of the se#ond speaker do not penetrate the first &tteran#eL its intentions are left inta#t. B&t, he #ontin&es, U Sh# a&thor +ay also +ake &se of so+eone else-s dis#o&rse for his oBn p&r % poses, by inserting a neB se+anti# intention into a dis#o&rse Bhi#h already

has, and Bhi#h retains, an intention of its oBn. 1&#h a dis#o&rse, in keeping Bith its task Ui.e., if it is to a#hieve its effe#t/k.v.V, +&st be per#eived as belonging to so+eone else. 3n one dis#o&rse, tBo se+anti# intentions appear, tBo voi#es. . . . Bo e<&ally Beighted dis#o&rses on one and the sa+e the+e, on#e having #o+e together, +&st inevitably orient the+selves to one another. Bo e+bodied +eanings #annot lie side by side like tBo obNe#ts/they +&st #o+e into inner #onta#tL +at is, they +&st enter into a se+anti# bond 0Bakhtin 1989, 188%1892.7: he Bork ofreediting !o+ania-s great #&lt&ral fig&res a##o+plished pre#isely this. A re#dition a+o&nts to a +assive &tteran#e +ade &nder 656 !D=A*3A* P!D DCH!D*11= one set of #ir#&+stan#es Bith one set of intentions, and noB infiltrated Bith the intentions of the neB fra+ing &tteran#e to Bhi#h it is s&bNe#ted. At the sa+e ti+e, the editor of a @#lassi#@ s&##eeds in +aking a state+ent Bitho&t having to a##ept responsibility for it, and lie a##&+&lates its #&lt&ral a&thority. His na+e and his Bork of editing for+ a se+anti# bond Bith the a&thority enNoyed by the #lassi# a&thor Bhose Bords he fra+es Bith an introd&#tion and e4egesis/often e4tensive, and definitely infl&en#ing hoB the Bork Bill then be read.7; A s#holar Bishing to pro+ote #ertain val&es that his politi#al environ+ent +akes it aBkBard if not i+possible to state +ight do so partially, a&g+enting his oBn a##&+&lations thro&gh the+, by for+ing a se+anti# bond Bith another Bhose intentions he re#asts to s&it his oBn. o all b&t the +ost sophisti#ated reader, his oBn intent Bill re+ain hidden behind the Bords of the original prod&#er. he r##ditions gain signifi#an#e in #onN&n#tion Bith proto#hronis+, for proto#hronists Bere #lai+ing to prote#t/and therefore Bere taking over/the #&lt&ral a&thority e+bedded in so+e of the greatest Borks of !o+anian #&lt&re. he past literary val&es proto#hronis+ defended Bere in no Bay bog&s ones. Proto#hronists, in effe#t, so&ght to e4propriate #&lt&ral a&thority a##&+&lated &nder the previo&s so#ial order and p&t it to Bork Bithin the neB one, by inserting the giants of the past into their oBn genealogies. 3n response, antiproto#hronists too +ade genealogi#al appropriations, defining the+selves as the tr&e #on%tin&ers of one or another grand !o+anian tradition and proper heirs to the #&lt&ral a&thority those #ontain. Both gro&ps so&ght to #apt&re the +aNor fig&res of the distant and +ore re#ent past, so+eti+es str&ggling to #ontrol the very sa+e persons 0E+ines#&, Blaga, novelist =arin Pr#da782. Ehile +any of these str&ggles o##&rred si+ply in Britten pole+i#s, the +ost d&rable genealogi#al appropriations Bere +ade thro&gh r##ditions. !eeditions of Borks by the +aNor fig&res of !o+anian #&lt&ral life shoB &s, then, hoB these fig&res be#a+e not +erely sy+bols to be fo&ght over, not +erely an#estors in #o+peting intelle#t&al genealogies, b&t servants of #o+peting gro&nds for a##&+&lating #&lt&ral a&thority.

COMPETING VALUES AND THE CONCENTRATION OF CULTURE IN THE APPARATUS

hese #o+peting gro&nds for a&thority red&#e, &lti+ately, to a&thority resting on distan#e fro+ the politi#al vers&s a&%

!D=A*3A* P!D DCH!D*31= 657 thority resting on pro4i+ity to it. !oth positions #an present the+selves as @patrioti#@ and as defending national val&es. Altho&gh proto#hronists tended to rely heavily on these notions, their opponents took their patrioti# stand on val&es s&#h as @the #riti#al spirit,@ @l&#idity,@ and the @a&tono+y of the aestheti#.@ "or e4a+ple, @ he tr&est devotion to !o+anian literat&re +anifests itself thro&gh N&dging it Bith +a4i+al l&#idity@ 0A. 1tefan#s#& 1981, 62. A&thors s&#h as this Bo&ld say that any other stan#e is s&spe#t, s+a#king not of tr&e #&lt&ral val&es b&t of those of the @b&rea&#rat-s brief#ase@ 0Frig&r#& 1981, 62. As one antiproto#hronist e4plained the str&ggle to +e, the real stake in the opposition to proto#hronis+ Bas to prote#t the #riti#al spirit. Ehereas for proto#hronists everything that is !o+anian is by definition good, he said, in fa#t not everything !o+anian is goodL one opposes proto#hronis+ so as to be able to #ontin&e e+itting N&dg+ents sele#tively/so as to be able to say, o##asionally, against the #hor&s of voi#es insisting that everything is fine si+ply be#a&se this is !o+ania, @Everything is not fine.@ 1&#h N&dg+ents re<&ire keeping the real+ of the aestheti# independent of politi#s/the sole #ondition, in this #riti#-s vieB, for a #riti#is+ Borthy of the na+e and a !o+anian #&lt&re Borthy of attention. People holding si+ilar opinions saB the danger to national val&es as #o+ing fro+ the in#&rsion of politi#s into the sphere of #&lt&re and arg&ed that they Bere defending the national interest on these gro&nds. Proto#hronists saB things differently. "or the+, @!o+anian #&lt&re is in#on#eivable o&tside the idea of the ho+eland UpatriaV@ 0Bra#s#& 1986e, 72. Proto#hronist Bades#& Bas +ore spe#ifi#, asking Bhat sho&ld reg&late the #ir#&lation of #&lt&ral val&es, he Brote that 3brailean& had replied @the #riti#al spirit,@ b&t Be say, rather, @the national idea,@ the only thing that is not #orr&ptible by passing events 0L&#eafar&l 198$ U:V, 92. Proto#hronists readily a##&sed their opponents of la#k of patriotis+ and of +aking the *ation v&lnerable to foreign infl&en#es. his #riti#is+ Bas so trea#hero&s that anti% proto#hronists had to go o&t of their Bay to #o+bat it. "or e4a+ple, #riti# =anoles#& #on#l&ded his intervieB Bith Hie P&r#ar& 0198:, 1982, @=y ho+eland Upatria` is !o+anian literat&re. As a #riti#, 3 a+ a #itiIen of literat&re and Bill serve it as long as 3 live. =y profession is patriotis+.@ 79 =ore generally, proto#hronists vieBed stri#tly aestheti# N&dg+ents as only one of several bases of eval&ation, alongside politi#al and so#ial #riteria, and saB all fo#&s on aestheti# +atters as a dodge. hat the aestheti# Bas a bone of #ontention is evident in tBo ill&strative <&otations fro+ proto#hronists, 659 !D=A*3A* P!D DCH!D*31= D&r literary #riti#is+ has a#ted to sti+&late a literat&re Bith so#ial and politi#al #o&rage, at least in theory. B&t doesn-t it see+ &nnat&ral to yo& that. . . dis#&ssions of the so#io%politi#al te4t&re of vario&s books are la#king in #o&rageK HoBever great one-s phobia for the e4#essively si+plified and ideologiIing #riti#is+ of the 19$5s, not to give #riti#al dis#&ssion to the ideologi#al #ontent of a novel see+s to +e to short#hange it. ... o take ref&ge behind +odalities, #onstr&#tion, Briting style, se+ioti#s, et#. Ui.e., aestheti# <&estions/k.v.V +eans so +any desertions fro+ a#hieving an integral #riti#al assess+ent and has de%ideologi.Sng effe#ts 0P&r#ar& 198:, :9%:$2.

he +agaIine =orning 1tar hosted not l&ng ago a ro&ndtable abo&t false stan% dards of #riti#al e4a#tingness and false literary hierar#hiesL in fa#t, abo&t #riteria that/Baving the banner of the a&tono+y of the aestheti#/pro+ote &n#ertain val&es and #ontest in#ontestable a&thors 0ibid., 6;52. Chief a+ong the so#iopoliti#al #riteria proto#hronists favored Bas nationality, as is evident, for e4a+ple, in one #riti#-s pro&d observation that he Eeek Bas fier#ely defending the #on#ept of ethni#ity in art 01ores#& 19862. Cognate arg&+ents raged in literary #riti#is+ earlier in the tBentieth #ent&ry, Bhether eval&ation of a Bork sho&ld rest on aestheti# N&dg+ents alone or +&st also satisfy ethni# #riteria, and the #losely related +atter of Bhether art is #onsidered a&tono+o&s of so#ial pro#esses or is deter+ined by the+. 3n Ale4andr#s#&-s interpretation of these arg&+ents 019872, those favoring the a&tono+y of the aestheti# fostered the develop+ent of a sy+boli# +arket that Bas +ore or less a&tono+o&s of other fa#tors. Conditions of self%finan#ing +ake pla&sible a si+ilar interpretation of the arg&+ents of the 1985s, even tho&gh the literary @+arket@ Bas heavily s&bNe#t to politi#al #ontrol. 3n the #onte4t of the 1985s, to arg&e for the a&tono+y of the aestheti# or to insist that aestheti# N&dg+ents be pri+ary Bas to ins&late #&lt&ral prod&#tion fro+ politi#s, fro+ having val&es set o&tside the literary #o++&nity, in the Central Co++ittee. 3t Bas a position that pro+oted the for+ation of a @p&re@ #&lt&ral a&thority, i++&ne to the tBists and t&rns of politi#al life, and that sit&ated the legiti+ation of #&lt&ral prod&#ts s<&arely Bithin the #o++&nity of professionals, rather than in the Party. "or analysts e4ternal to the sit&ation, there is no reason, on the fa#e of it, to prefer a @p&re@ #&lt&ral a&thority to one that e4pli#itly integrates its politi#al #o++it+ents into its defense of #&lt&ral val&es. 3f the politi#al #o++it+ents Bere those of pl&ralis+ and de+o#ra#y, +ost Besterners Bo&ld appla&dL politi#s in #&lt&re takes on a s+&tty #onnotation only Bhen the #onte4t is @totalitarian.@ o assess the signifi% !D=A*3A* P!D DCH!D*31= 65$ #an#e of the antiproto#hronists- insistently apoliti#al identity and of the proto#hronists- indigenis+ re<&ires that Be look +ore #losely at hoB these tBo positions interse#ted Bith the tenden#ies of so#ialist syste+s. his +eans looking not at Bhether one or other fa#tion espo&sed prin#iples e4pli#itly of so#ialis+, as &nderstood by =ar4, Lenin, Fra+s#i, and others, b&t at their relation to the #entral dyna+i# of real%so#ialist so#ieties, +a4i+iIation of #ontrol by the politi#al apparat&s over all reso&r#es, Bithin #onditions of ende+i# shortage. he debate aro&nd proto#hronis+ affords o&tstanding ill&stration of hoB politi#s Bithin #&lt&re be#a+e the politi#iIation of #&lt&re, the draBing of #&lt&ral prod&#tion into the sphere of &se%val&es #ontrolled by the apparat&s. Ehat began as a debate on a single terrain, for stakes that Bere par e4#ellen#e #&lt&ral, be#a+e a #ontest over different gro&nds for a##&+&lating #&lt&ral a&thorityL so+e of these gro&nds entailed #onversions fro+ the politi#al sphere. 3t see+s beyond do&bt that Edgar Pap& intended nothing +ore than to r#ori#nt the readings given to #lassi# te4ts. His ai+s Bere those of the average professor Bho has a good idea and hopes to shift the eval&ations of #o+peten#e and e4#ellen#e in his oBn favor. 1o+e of those Bho pi#ked &p the notion of proto#hronis+ did so in the interests of getting aro&nd the obsta#les

to their advan#e+ent in a literary profession do+inated by others rel&#tant to +ake roo+ for the+. Even these opport&nisti# &ses of proto#hronis+ a+o&nted to playing essentially the sa+e ga+e, for the sa+e stakes, seeking to b&ild #&lt&ral a&thority on the basis ot an innovation that potentially &nder#&t the a&thority of others, thro&gh its insisten#e that only those a##&+&lations based on indigeno&s val&es Bere legiti+ate. By indig#niIing their #&lt&ral genealogies and seeking to #reate @<&alitative leaps in spirit&al a#tivity . . . Uon the basis ofV the <&antitative a##&+&lations of Uo&rV prede#essors-@ 0Ungh#an& 198$, 9192, proto#hronists folloBed the prote#tionist strategy of earlier #&lt&ral +ove+ents analyIed so insightf&lly by Fh#orghi& 0398$a, 198;, 19952. B&t at a #ertain point proto#hronis+, a pla&sible idea invented Bithin the #&lt&ral sphere, #a+e to be per#eived as &sef&l to the Party leadership and to people Bith politi#al a+bitions.9@ 3t be#a+e a val&able politi#al instr&+ent, Bielded by persons Bhose gen&ine passion for the the+e Bas itself do&bly &sef&l to a politi#al leadership needing for+s of legiti+ation that Bere gen&ine and not i+posed. As the leadership-s +ode of #ontrol be#a+e +ore resol&tely sy+boli#%ideologi#al, Bith in#reasing relian#e on national ideology in parti#&lar, the in#orporation 65: !D=A*3A* 1-!D DCH!D*31= of national #&lt&ral val&es be#a+e an even +ore i+portant adN&n#t to politi#al goals than before. he e+phases ofproto#hronis+ interse#ted neatly Bith these goals, +aking it available for politi#al &ses that Bere so+eti+es e4tre+e. 3ts insisten#e on @original #reation@ e#hoed the Party-s prod&#tionist bias. Proto#hronist Britings s&pported the personality #&lt of Cea&aes#&, the relative a&tar#hy atte+pted in the Cea&ses#& era, the interBeaving of Party history Bith the +illennial history of !o+anians,91 the #all for so#ially.politi#ally relevant art, the aggressive e+phasis on territorial borders that +ight in fa#t be even bigger than the ones noB on Borld +aps, 96 and the resistan#e to 1oviet i+perialis+ in all <&arters. Eithin a so#ial order Bhose dyna+i# Bas to +a4i+iIe the #ontrol of the apparat&s over reso&r#es, proto#hronis+ pro+ised a literat&re that Bas !o+anianX val&es that Bere !o+anian/that is, literat&re and val&es of s#ant &se to any b&t a !o+anian state. Proto#hronis+ arg&ed for a literat&re that Bas !o+anian first, e4pressed openly its intention of being &sef&l to the state, and #reated lineages of !o+anian #&lt&ral heroes thro&gh Bho+ the broad reading p&bli# +ight be linked to the past and bright f&t&re of the *ation. heirs Bas a literat&re that both lent #&lt&ral a&thority to the politi#al sphere, giving the Party leadership the appearan#e of being s&pported by learning and #&lt&re, and gained its prod&#ers 0Briters2 and its poli#e+en 0#riti#s2 great politi#al infl&en#e. 3t p&shed #&lt&ral prod&#tion into the servi#e of a neB politi% #al order and enabled the e4e#&tors of that order to penetrate a field of a#tivity that had resisted s&#h penetration.97 And it helped to #onstr&#t a fi#tiv# +ono#thni# #&lt&ral heritage fro+ the politi#al reality of a +&lti%national state. hese effe#ts #onstit&te the @&se%val&e@ of proto#hronis+ to the politi#al apparat&s.99 3 believe it Bo&ld be a +istake, hoBever, to se# this advan#e of so#ialis+-s +a4i+iIation prin#iple as happening entirely at the Party-s behest.1$ Proto#hronis+ Bas not bro&ght abo&t by the Party leadership-s eagerness to

shore &p its legiti+a#y Bith nationalis+ 0indeed, so+e proto#hronists appear to have e4#eeded Bhat the leaders +ight intend1:2. Altho&gh its e+phasis on national val&es indeed appealed to the leadership, this is far fro+ revealing the pro#esses thro&gh Bhi#h it e+erged. "or these Be +&st look to hoB the Party leadership-s retreat fro+ politi#al and e#ono+i# refor+s and its in#reased politi#i4ation ot #&lt&re established a neB environ+ent, Bithin Bhi#h #o++it+ents, passions, #al#&lations, hopes, prin#iples, and irrational traits of personality +ight drive individ&al Briters and #riti#s into neB #o&rses ot a#% !D=A*3A* P!D DCH!D*31= 65; tion. Persons Bith a+bitions for advan#e+ent that Bere being fr&strated, Bith talents ins&ffi#iently re#ogniIed, noB saB their #han#e. 3n atta#hing the+selves to proto#hronis+ as part of their bid for #&lt&ral poBer, Briters and #riti#s Bere taking advantage of neB opport&nities, not rel&#tantly i+ple+enting di#tates fro+ above. 1o+e of the+ Bere +otivated by feelings of dislo#ation, +arginaliIation, and other so&r#es of personal pain. 9; Dthers Bere si+ply yo&ng Briters and #riti#s for Bho+ #ver%+or#%red&#ed p&bli#ations and printing r&ns Bere destroying their #han#es to p&blish. "or the pri#e of their adheren#e to #ertain val&es, +any fo&nd a pla#e in proto#hronist p&bli#ations.98 Dn both sides Bere people Borking o&t their life traNe#tories Bithin the #onfines of a parti#&lar organiIation of their Borld, Bho spoke a lang&age of national identity as part of pro+oting the+selves and their val&es. *early all of the+ had a deep #o++it+ent to their notion of Bhat !o+anian #&lt&re sho&ld be. =ost of the+ #arried that sa+e #o++it+ent into the neB str&#t&re of opport&nities of the 1995s. Ehat proto#hronis+ shoBs &s, then, is not hoB the Party dire#ted #&lt&re b&t hoB the organiIation of !o+anian so#iety engendered spe#ifi# kinds of #ontests betBeen fra#tions of a #&lt&ral elite, str&ggling for greater infl&en#e Bithin their oBn sphere of #o+peten#e and interest and striving to se#&re the #&lt&ral a&thority essential to +aintaining their positions as prod&#ers of #&lt&re. he +otivations of those involved in this #ontest Bere less a #ons#io&s intention to b&ild their #&lt&ral a&thority in 0or against2 the servi#e of a politi#al regi+e than their desire to realiIe their professional hopes and give voi#e to the val&es i+portant to the+. heir so#ial order fa#ilitated this for so+e of the+, by enabling the+ to #onvert #&lt&ral into politi#al a&thorityL pro% to#hronis+ Bas one +eans. Eithin their so#ial spa#e, defined by the tBo di+ensions of politi#al stat&s and #&lt&ral a&thority, proto#hronis+ +oved persons fro+ Ione 1 to Ione 6 0se# fig. 72. By #ha+pioning the indig#nist val&es so &sef&l to the politi#al leadership, proto#hronists hoped to gain greater #ontrol over the reso&r#es that Bo&ld a##r&e to Bhoever +ost pers&asively @represented@ !o+anian #&lt&re. his #ontrol +ight even in#l&de entering the apparat&s itself, be#o+ing +e+bers of the Central Co++ittee, serving as Bat#hdogs over opport&nities and p&bli#ations, and in this Bay enhan#ing the re#eption of their oBn Borks, Bhi#h Bo&ld b&ild their rep&tations as prod&#ers of #&lt&re. Proto#hronis+ and the opposition to it also shoB &s +ore than si+ply a #onfli#t abo&t nationaliIing #&lt&ral prod&#tion or abo&t the proble+s of being a s&baltern #&lt&re, as so+e of the ter+s &sed +ight s&ggest. hey shoB the possibilities and #onstraints Bithin Bhi#h literary prod&#tion &nfolded in this so#ial syste+. he for+ of this syste+, Bhi#h gave absol&te predo+inan#e to

the politi#al se#tor and so&ght to in#orporate all other val&es &nder its &+brella, pressed a#tion &lti+ately toBard the politi#al. 3t &nder+ined the basis for the independent for+ation of #&lt&ral a&thority along a&tono+o&sly professional linesL it fa#ilitated +obility Bithin politi#al ter+s over +obility Bithin professional organiIations. he latter Bas the kind of +obility preferred by persons Bishing to resist the transfor+ation of their so#iety into Bhat they per#eived to be an over#entraliIed tyranny. Dne +&st also note, nevertheless, that not +erely proto#hronists b&t their adversaries as Bell #ontrib&ted to this politi#iIation of #&lt&re. 1o+e of those Bho sided against proto#hronis+ had in an earlier day enNoyed the benefits of an allian#e Bith politi#s. 3t Bas in part their politi#al sit&ation that had enabled the+ to displa#e Barb&, #atalyIing the for+ation of his fa#tion/a fa#tion that Bo&ld take advantage of the neBly opened spa#e #lose to poBer after 19;1.19;9. he s&##ession of gro&ps allied Bith the Party +eant that Bhoever Bas displa#ed had no #lai+ to stat&s other than the defense of #&lt&ral a&thority. By str&ggling, as a res&lt, to #onstit&te and define #&lt&ral a&thority in their oBn ter+s, by giving proto#hronists an ansBer, by #ontending Bith the+ !D=A*3A* P!D DCH!D*31= 659 for #&lt&ral repr#s#ntativen#ss, these adversaries helped to refine the in% str&+ent proto#hronis+ delivered into the hands of the Party. Even +ore i+portant, be#a&se the tBo gro&ps e4ha&sted their energies in striving to preserve elite stat&s as they vario&sly defined it, neither a+eliorated the repressive #onditions that +ade their #onfli#t so sharp.

)rotochronism and Shortage

he analysis in this #hapter has ai+ed at shoBing #ertain #hara#teristi#s of !o+anian so#ialist so#iety that the proto#hronis+ debates reveal. 3 have des#ribed hoB the lang&age of arg&+ent Bas linked Bith the partial r##o++odifi#ation of #&lt&re and, +ore broadly, Bith a str&ggle for opport&nities Bithin the #&lt&ral sphere. 3 have pointed to the Bay in Bhi#h a##&sations and #o&ntera##&sations abo&t #&lt&ral representativeness, in#l&ding alleged betrayals, ---elitis+,@ and i+pli#ations of in#o+peten#e, Bere part of the #o+petition a+ong gro&ps for #entrally distrib&ted re#ognition and #&lt&ral reso&r#es. 3n addition, 3 have s&ggested that the debate in general, b&t proto#hronis+ in parti#&lar, tended to deliver #&lt&ral val&es to the politi#al apparat&s. 3n this final se#tion 3 Bish to s&ggest hoB proto#hronis+ f&n#tioned Bithin the @e#ono+y of shortage@ that Bas ende+i# to so#ialist politi#al e#ono+ies of #o++and type, s&#h as that of C#a&ses#&-s !o+ania. =y arg&+ent Bill be #learer Bith the help of an e4tended e4a+ple. 3t #onsists of a pie#e entitled @3deals,@ Britten by proto#hronist Corneli& (adi+ &dor b&t not signed by hi+.99 he arti#le appeared in he Eeek in 1985 0not long after the &nfavorable disposition of editor Barb&-s plagiaris+ #ase2 and provoked o&trage fro+ SeBish #ir#les inside and o&tside !o+ania, as Bell as fro+ the United 1tates, 3n all ti+es and in all provin#es d&ring their te+porary separations fro+ ea#h other, !o+anians had, alongside a &nitary essen#e and an a#&te sense of their #o++on history, also a national ideal. Ee #an even say that as life-s #r&elties greB +ore terrible, so +&#h the +ore ardently did Be Brap o&r heart in die

flag of this ideal, so +&#h the +ore vividly did die #athedral of o&r heart e+body the sole+n +ass W +&s#t sole+na 0si#2 ` of o&r faith in vi#tory. D&r ill&strio&s s#holars, as Bell as die anony+o&s geni&ses Bho #reated o&r folklore, left &nset%tlingly deep eviden#e to this effe#t. And the ho&r is not far Bhen their Bork Bill all se# again the heavenly light of print. Ee arg&e here . . . for p&tting ba#k into #ir#&lation the sa#red te4ts of o&r #iviliIation, gathered into a #olle#tion that +ight be #alled the @*ational Library@, the politi#al Britings of E+ines#&, the "ig&re 7 Proto#hronis+ in the 1pa#e of C&lt&ral Politi#s 615 !D=A*3A* P!D DCH!D*31= spee#hes ot Ua long listV, the entire Borks of*i#ola# lorga, . . . the rilogy of (al&es of L&#ian Blaga, and +any +any +ore. hey are tlie &ns&rpassable treas&ry of o&r patri+ony, and even if die a&thors of one or another of the+ parti#ipated in so+e +istakes and e4#esses, their f&nda+ental Borks re+ain and ar# goods that have been gained, springs of the spirit ever aBake for the #ons#io&sness of !o+anity everyBhere. Ee have the fort&ne to live today #losely &nited &nder the s#eptre of an e4#eptional politi#al do#trine. ... 3t obliges &s to be e<&al to the an#estral ideals that it #arries on, ... to defend and raise to s&perior heights all that has been Bon Ulit. #on<&eredV to noB Bith s&#h sa#rifi#e. his is the !o+anian line, and Be Bill never abN&re it. *at&rally, Be oBe no one an a##o&nting of Bhat Be do, Be ar# free, Be are the +aNority, and +asters in o&r oBn #o&ntryL the histori#al #hoi#e for a !o+anian kind of #o++&nis+ Bas +ade and taken to heart by +illions of loyal sons of this #o&ntry. And to those Bho a##&se &s of all sorts of nonsense, Be Bill say that if to love yoB patria above all else +eans nationalis+, then Be are nationalists. . . . Ee, people of #&lt&re of the !o+ania of these heroi# years, love the Co++&nist party not only for the neB vision and fresh spirit it has enthroned in the Bhole evol&tion ot !o+anian so#iety, . . . b&t also in e<&al +eas&re oBing to its tr&ly revol&tionary #o&rage in &nderstanding that a nation #an b&ild itself only thro&gh the people of its lo#alities Bho have been born here for h&ndreds and tho&sands of years and Bho do not abandon the front of Bork Bhen things get to&gh. he Party knoBs . . . that the highest honors sho&ld go to those Bho a##o+plish patrioti# deeds, . . . not to visitors eager for gain, . . . #lad in fo&l%s+elling tartans,--@ Herods foreign to the interests of this nation Bho . . . +ake people diIIy Bith their spe#&lator patriotis+. Ee have no need for laIy prophets, for S&das#s Bho la#k the di+ension of !o+anian self% sa#rifi#e in their blood, so easily p&r#hased. As E+ines#& rightly said, @A floating pop&lation #annot represent the stability of instit&tions, #annot represent the deep%rooted senti+ent of the idea of the state, of har+ony and national solidarity@ 01ap%ta++a 19852. he only thing this arti#le la#ks is the paean to Cea&ses#& that #loses +ost #o+parable te4ts.$1 =any feat&res of this arti#le deserve #o++ent, s&#h as its pi#a for &n#4p&rgat#d r##ditions of great Borks 0hoBsoever i+perfe#t their #reators2,$6 its #on#eption of #&lt&re as Bealth 0a @treas&ry@2, its startling religio&s lang&age,$7 its assertions of national independen#e, its patriar#hy and +ilitary flavor 0@loyal sons,@ @#on<&ered,@ @heroi#-@2, its e4press allian#e of @#&lt&re@ Bith the Party, and so on. 3 Bill negle#t these so as to #on#entrate on its 4enophobia. hat the arti#le is patently anti%se+iti# is beyond do&bt. 3t for+s

part of +ore than one set of atta#ks on SeBs by proto#hronist a&thors. $9 At the sa+e ti+e, &dor--s pie#e is +ore broadly 4enophobi#, it is, espe#ially, anti% Fer+an and anti%H&ngarian, as is evident fro+ the referen#es to people abandoning @the front ot Bork Bhen things get to&gh@ and to being @born here for h&ndreds of !D=A*3A* P!D DCH!D*31= 611 tho&sands of years,@ Bhi#h sneer at Fer+an e+igration and the arrival of both gro&ps a +ere +illenni&+ or less ago. his te4t, like +any other proto#hronist Britings, is an a#t of e4#l&sion and poli#ing. 3t e4#l&des fro+ the !o+anian @feast@ anyone not having a p&re !o+anian pedigree, and it poli#es the borders of @the !o+anian people@ against poll&tion by other bloods, ra#es, #reeds, and histories. 3ts te#hni<&es are si+ilar to those of other proto#hronist poli#e+en of the #&lt&ral elite 0notably P&r#ar&, 1ilv#stri, and C. 1or#s#&2, $$ Bhose Britings display a strong pen#hant for dividing &p the #&lt&ral Borld into ar+ed #a+ps, e4iling +e+bers of the opposing #a+p, and anathe+atising Briters Bhose personal #hara#teristi#s are not to their taste. hey deno&n#e the elitists, dog+atists, and other traitors Bho sell o&t the !o+anian people to foreigners peddling false val&es. A+ong the +ost Bidespread of the te#hni<&es &sed in these poli#e a#tions/a te#hni<&e they share Bith E&ropean rightist and fas#ist +ove+ents earlier in this #ent&ry 0se# !ogger and Eeber 19:$L Link# 198:2/is re#o&rse to organi# i+agery and to +etaphors of kinship. Drgani# i+ages groB Bild in their te4ts, for everything fro+ Cea&s#s#&-s relation to the people on thro&gh the people-s ti# to the land, b&t parti#&larly for the link betBeen !o+anians and their #&lt&re. Early !o+anian Briters ar# seen as @fathers@ Ust+nBy, paring^ of #on% te+porary #&lt&re, related to it thro&gh lineal genealogi#al ti#s 0se# e.g., >a+fir#s#& 19;$, 9:%9;L an entire se#tion is #alled @1pirit&al An#estors@2, @U Vhe &nity of #onte+porary !o+anian literat&re is indestr&#tible, for it Bas and is tied organi#ally to the interests and hopes of the people@ 0P&r#ar& 198:, 1$:2. *ot only this, b&t #&lt&re itself is seen as an organis+, a being Bith a so&l that has both organi#ity and vitality, linked to generations 0a solidly biologi#al #on#ept2 of #reative geni&ses perpet&ating the line of their spirit&al forebears 0>a+fires#& 19;$, 9:2. "or e4a+ple, one a&thor Brites of the @personality@ of !o+anian literat&re 0Ciopraga 19812, des#ribing #&lt&re as an organi# pheno+enon Bith blood ti#s to sister #&lt&res 0s&#h as those of !o% +ania Bith "ran#e2. his is a very different i+age of #&lt&re fro+ one that represents it as a +arketable #o++odity, for instan#e, or as a set of traditions e+bedded in a #o++&nity not seen as an organis+.$: Ehat this organi# i+agery a##o+plishes, of #o&rse, is a de#isive bo&nding of a #o++&nity seen as @nat&ral@ and as separate fro+ all those persons and #o++&nities Bhose +etaboli# pro#esses spring fro+ different roots. Bo&ndaries #on#eived as organi# and geneti# are nearly

616 !D=A*3A* P!D DCH!D*31= alBays +ore rigid and e4#l&sive than those #on#eived as @#&lt&ral@, one #an learn a neB lang&age and neB #&sto+s, and one #an #hange one-s religion, b&t one-s bloodline is a given, +anip&lable 0if at all2 only by a lengthy pro#ess of genealogi#al revision.$; Ehereas persons on the Brong side of a #&lt&ral bo&ndary +ay try 0or be for#ed2 to #ross it by #&lt&ral assi+ilation, the &lti+ate fate of those on the Brong side of the bloodlines is not vol&ntary a#tion b&t e4p&lsion or death. 3t is the #ategori#al nat&re of the ostra#is+ effe#ted by organi# i+agery that s&ggests the link of proto#hronis+ to !o+ania-s @e#ono+y of shortage.@ 3n so#ialis+-s @s&pply%#onstrained@ politi#al e#ono+i#s, the nat&re and the res&lts of #o+petition Bere very different fro+ the nat&re and the res&lts of #o+petition Bithin +arket%based, @de+and%#onstrained@ syste+s. Co+petition in the latter eli+inates the &ns&##essf&l fro+ f&rther parti#ipation and a##&+&lates the profits and e#ono+i# #apital of the s&##essf&l. his is be#a&se #apitalist fir+s ar# &s&ally s&bNe#t to Bhat )ornai 019852 #alls @hard b&dget #onstraints,-@ +eaning that 0#ertain +aNor e4#eptions notBithstanding2 they ar# not bailed o&t if they #annot t&rn a s&ffi#ient profit, they go bankr&pt. Co+petition Bithin so#ialist syste+s pro#eeded otherBise. Be#a&se their b&dget #onstraints Bere @soft,@ Bith fir+s re#eiving state s&bsidies regardless of their +arket s&##ess, the &ns&##essf&l Bere never <&ite eli+inated. his Bas the +ore tr&e of so#ialist syste+s s&#h as !o+ania-s/as opposed to that of +arket%refor+ing H&ngary/in Bhi#h the highly #entraliIed #o++and str&#t&re perpet&ated a shortage e#ono+y +ini+ally alleviated by +arket for#es. 3 Bo&ld vent&re the generaliIation that #o+petition in s&#h syste+s alBays involved positioning on a. s#ale rather than eli+ination fro+ the field. 3n !o+ania, then, regardless of Bhether #o+petition o##&rred in the prod&#tion #a+paigns Bithin fa#tories, in the bargaining relations betBeen fir+s or +inistries and the #entral planning apparat&s, or in the #&lt&ral #o+petitions of the @1ong of !o+ania@ folk festivals, $8 the res&lt Bas less a red&#tion of the field of #o+petitors than their hie+r#hiIatBn. 3f in for+al ter+s soft b&dget #onstraints +ean that #o+petitors ar# never Bholly eli+inated b&t +erely fall farther doBn the ladder, in a#t&al ter+s a syste+ of e4tre+e shortage +&st eli+inate #o+petitors, for even those far doBn the ladder #an still #lai+ so+e reso&r#es fro+ those higher &p, Bhose #han#es are NeopardiIed. 1hortage levels in a&sterity%ridden !o+ania of the 1985s Bere &nparalleled in any other East%blo# #o&ntryL only labor Bas in less than short s&pply, for there Bere not eno&gh +aterials to e+ploy it. o a sit&ation of s&#h e4tre+e shortage the e4#esses of proto#hronist rhetori# offered a sol&tion, one that !D=A*3A* P!D DCH!D*31= 617 e4pelled #o+petitors Bho Bere not of !o+anian blood or did not a#t as if they Bere.$1he organi# i+agery and lineal e+phases Bithin proto#hronist lang&age provided strong +eans for e4#l&ding, rather than +erely hi#rar#hiIing, #o+petitorsL these +eans Bere far stronger and +ore rigid than the e+phases of the opposing side on @aestheti#s,@ @standards,@ or @<&ality.@ he effe#ts of this #li+ate of e4p&lsion Bere felt in events as diverse as !o+anians losing their Nobs for having relatives abroad and the

disproportionate e4od&s of H&ngarians and Fer+ans fro+ !o+ania as the 1985s Bore on. hat the talk of the proto#hronists be#a+e progressively +ore e4tre+e as shortage and #risis in !o+ania deepened Bo&ld appear to #onfir+ the hypothesis of their inter#onne#tion. An idea Bith +&#h to re#o++end it at the o&tset, proto#hronis+ Bas initially dis#&ssed in a relatively #al+ +anner on both sides. By 1985, hoBever, the tone had #hanged, as #an readily be seen by #o+paring the fairly +eas&red lang&age of the initial dis#&ssions p&blished in 19;; and 19;8 0see Unghean& 198$2 Bith that of &dor-s arti#le 0above2 or ofP&r#ar& in +any of his intervieBs. '&ring the 1985s proto#hronist Britings a#hieved a level of ling&isti# violen#e s&ited only to a f&ll%s#ale so#ietal #risis. he #risis Bas real. "or e4#l&ding #o+petitors, there ar# no other +eans/espe#ially not Bithin the ideas of =ar4 and Lenin/as effe#tive as ra#ist nationalis+. h&s, radi#al e4#l&sions and their potential to alleviate shortage are best a#hieved thro&gh e4aggerating #ertain for+s of national ideology. 3t Bas not N&st the presen#e of a national dis#o&rse in the spee#h of !o+anian intelle#t&als, b&t the parti#&lar for+ of it in the +o&ths of proto#hronists, that enNoyed these ele#tive affinities Bith an e#ono+y of severe shortage. And be#a&se soft b&dget #onstraints favored fir+s over ho&seholds, Bhi#h Bere the final &nits in a #hain of &pBard deliveries and the point at Bhi#h shortage &lti+ately #a+e to rest 0se# )ornai 1986, 69/6;2, the effe#ts of the proto#hronist rhetori# of e4p&lsion Bere not #onfined to intelle#t&al e4#hanges. 1oBn Bidely thro&gho&t !o+ania by the large%#ir#&lation #&lt&ral Beeklies the proto#hronists +onopoliIed, proto#hronis+-s effe#ts had fertile soil Bithin the pop&lation at large. his fa#t, and the shortage #ertain to #ontin&e for so+e ti+e after C#a&ses#&-s fall, virt&ally g&arantee a pla#e for national ideology in the politi#s of the post% Cea&s#s#& era. he goal of this #hapter has been to assess the signifi#an#e and to a##o&nt for the spread of an idea that arose in a s+all #orner of the a#ade+y, literary #riti#is+. 3ts +odest origins Bo&ld not have led one to 619 !D=A*3A* P!D DCH!D*11= i+agine that it Bo&ld be pi#ked &p by historians, so#iologists, #thnog%raph#rs, philosophers, +athe+ati#ians, and the Feneral 1e#retary of the Co++&nist party. Certainly Edgar Pap& did not anti#ipate this re#eption, for he had been peddling the idea &nheeded for several years before it s&ddenly took off. 3ts take%off, 3 have s&ggested, Bas part of a r###ntraliIation and ideologi4ation of the !o+anian politi#al e#ono+y. his prod&#ed a neB #onfig&ration of opport&nities, in Bhi#h pro%to#hronis+ proved &sef&l to persons #o+peting Bithin the sphere of #&lt&ral a#tivity so as to redistrib&te poBer and val&es Bithin their fields. Eith its e+phasis on national val&es and on sy+boli# a##&+&lations fro+ heal prod&#tion, proto#hronis+ served to generate neB sy+boli# or #&lt&ral a&thority Bithin different a#ade+i# and No&rnalisti# dis#iplines. S&st as o##&rred in the first half of the present #ent&ry, hoBever, e+bedded at the heart of these neB sy+boli# a##&+&lations Bas the national idea. =&#h as proto#hronists and their opponents resisted one another-s point of vieB, both shared a #o++on gro&nd, the *ation and its proper val&es. he debates therefore reinfor#ed the tenden#y for intelle#t&al a#tivity to revolve aro&nd

definitions of these, rather than aro&nd so+ething else. 'espite so#ialis+-s radi#al transfor+ation of the environ+ent for #&lt&ral prod&#tion, then, the #onN&n#t&re of the 19;5s and 1985s on#e again reprod&#ed @the *ation@ at the root of a#ade+i# and #reative endeavor. hro&gh debates like those #on#erning proto#hronis+, national ideology Bas perpet&ated/at the e4pense of =ar4is+ /as a potent for#e in !o+ania-s ideologi#al field.

CHAP E! 13G 'istoriogra hy in a Party Mode: 'orea(s Re)olt and the Production of 'istory he only absol&tely #ertain thing is the f&t&re, sin#e the past is #onstantly #hanging. /C&goslav aphoris+ Historians are dangero&s people. hey are #apable of &psetting everything. hey +&st be dire#ted. /*ikita )hr&sh#hev61$ Literat&re and literary #riti#is+, dis#&ssed in #hapter $, Bere not the only areas in Bhi#h the Party-s atte+pt to re#entraliIe #&lt&re and yoke it to a sy+boli#% ideologi#al +ode of #ontrol sharpened #o+petition a+ong prod&#ers of #&lt&re. 1i+ilar pro#esses also o##&rred in the dis#ipline of history, a field even +ore #entral to the !o+anian leadership-s painstaking efforts to #onstr&#t a neB hege+ony.6 Ehile literat&re and art, for =ar4ist%Leninist leaders, are +erely +eans for e4pressing neB so#ial val&es to raise the #ons#io&sness of the @+asses,@ history, for the+, &ndergirds the very fo&ndations of r&le. =ar4is+% Leninis+ everyBhere has N&stified itself Bith a theory of history/diale#ti#al or histori#al +aterialis+/for Bhi#h it #lai+s the 61: HD!EA-1 !E(DL A*' HE P!D'UC 3D* D" H31 D!C stat&s of a s#ien#e. "or =ar4ist%Leninists, a #orre#t &nderstanding of the past is essential to #orre#tly foreseeing the dire#tion of histori#al develop+ent and to deter+ining poli#ies for the f&t&re. he laBs of history that =ar4is+%Leninis+ reveals and instit&tionaliIes in the Co++&nist party have been the #ornerstone, then, of these regi+es- legiti+ation, as are ideas of p&bli# parti#ipation and #onsent, for parlia+entary de+o#ra#ies 0Eidlin 198;2. Added to the general signifi#an#e of history for Co++&nist parties is a spe#ifi# link betBeen historiography and the #onstr&#tion of national identity. *otions of the past reinfor#e identities in so#ial orders of all kinds b&t be#a+e instit&tionaliIed toBard this end d&ring the for+ation of Eestern E&ropean nation%states, a pattern Bith overBhel+ing infl&en#e &pon their step%siblings in Eastern E&rope. "or those nations%in%for+ation, as 3 s&ggested in #hapter 1, history%Briting Bas inti+ately #onne#ted Bith for+ing national #ons#io&snessL historians Bere a+ong the +ain inspirations for +ove+ents of national independen#e in the region 0!. 1eton%Eatson 1966, 68%762. Historiography be% #a+e, therefore, inevitably politi#al. his Bas do&bly tr&e given that history defines in ti+e and spa#e the bo&ndaries a politi#al for+ation Bill o##&py/a f&n#tion espe#ially vital in areas s&#h as Eastern E&rope, Bhere territorial bo&ndaries have been #onstantly #hallenged and revised. 3n #onse<&en#e, it Bas not only in the #o++&nist period that the line separating patriotis+ fro+ s#holarship in Eastern E&rope Bas so+eti+es diffi#&lt to draB. *or Bas it only in that period that a histori#al idio+ lay at the #enter of politi#al lang&age, for three #ent&ries or +ore, East E&ropeans have &sed history and its interpretation to speak abo&t relations Bith their neighbors and abo&t their national identity, the Cea&Mes#& era doing no +ore than to enlarge this ling&isti# repertoire Bith hidden referen#es to so#ialist internationalis+ or points of =ar4ist theory. 3n s&+, as !obert )ing p&t it 01985, 1;12, in Eastern

E&rope @the past is not a s&bNe#t for har+less s+all talk.@ hese state+ents of Bhat is broadly tr&e abo&t historiography, national identity, and politi#s in Eastern E&rope apply Bith f&ll for#e to !o+ania. 3n the Bords of !o+anian historian Al. >&b, @"ro+ the beginning, a harsh ne#essity #o+pelled o&r +en of letters toBard st&dy of the past, transfor+ed into a +eans of str&ggle to preserve o&r ethni# being ...@ 01987, 7:2. !o+anian s#holar.politi#ian *i#olae Bal#es#& 0a+ong #o&ntless others2, Briting in the +id%nineteenth #ent&ry, e4e+plified this Bell Bhen he e4plained Bhy he Bas doing a history of Prin#e =i#hael the Brave, @3 Banted to #o+plete a Bork abo&t =i#hael the HD!EA-1 !E(DL A*' HE P!D'UC 3D* D" H31 D!C 61; Brave and to lay the fo&ndation stone of national &nity@ 0Bal#es#& 19;9, 82. here is an &nbroken line fro+ this historian%+ilitant to the ar+y offi#er in the Center for =ilitary History Bho said to +e in 1988, his hands tre+bling Bith e+otion, @ hese U<&estions of !o+anian originsV are not N&st a#ade+i# <&estionsA Ehat is at stake is the very e4isten#e of a nationA@ he #onte4ts in Bhi#h these tBo +en spoke differed greatly, as did the i+pli#ations of their Bork for the #o&rse of so#ial develop+ent, b&t the thoro&gh%going #o++it+ent to a politi#s of history%Briting Bas the sa+e. 3n so#ialist !o+ania, one fo&nd this #o++it+ent at all points in the field of histori#al prod&#tion, fro+ those atta#hed to the #entral organs of Party r&le to those +ost divor#ed fro+ the+, and in virt&ally all the+es on Bhi#h resear#h Bas #arried o&t. "or these reasons, the dis#ipline of history has been a field espe#ially ri#h in #ontests and #onfli#ting #lai+s and an espe#ially appropriate site for e4a+ining the politi#s of #&lt&re and identity in so#ialist !o+ania. Dne +&st nonetheless bear in +ind that historiography has an i+portant relation to poBer in syste+s of other types as Bell. "ro+ ethnographi# a##o&nts of hoB tribal peoples revise their genealogies on &p to Fer+an revisions of the *aIi past, 9 Be see history serving an i+portant ideologi#al role in so#ieties of all kinds, in#l&ding o&r oBn, and for+ing an ele+ent of #&lt&re that is interBoven Bith politi#s everyBhere.$ A#knoBleding this re<&ires that Be ask not 0fa#e !anke2 hoB history @really happened@ in a given so#iety and hoB it has been politi#ally @distorted@ b&t, rather, hoB visions of the past are +ade. HoB, in other Bords, is history prod&#edK HoB Bas its politi#iIation shaped by so#ialis+-s pe#&liarities, and in Bhat relation to +atters of national identityK@ he present #hapter addresses these <&estions of hoB @the past@ Bas prod&#ed in Cea&Mes#&-s !o+ania and hoB its prod&#tion Bas intertBined Bith national ideology. aken at fa#e val&e, s&#h <&estions pose the agenda not for a single #hapter b&t for an entire book.; o address the+ in a brief #o+pass re<&ires taking a spe#ifi# e4a+ple, rather than trying to s&rvey the Bhole field. A n&+ber of topi#s in !o+anian historiography +ight serve this p&rpose, s&#h as the @da#o+ania@ of the 19;5s 0an e4aggerated #on#ern Bith the 'a#ians in die origin +yth2, or 1985s revisions in the history of Eorld Ear 33.8 he e4a+ple 3 sele#t is relatively ar#ane and invisible, #o+pared to those N&st +entioned, and it engaged noBhere near as +any intelle#t&al energies as those, or as the arg&+ents des#ribed in #hapter $. =y e4a+ple is a debate #on#erning the stat&s of an event/vario&sly des#ribable as an &prising, a revol&% 618 HD!EA-1 !E(DL A*' HE P!D'UC 3D* D" H31 D!C

tion, a revolt, or a rebellion/that o##&rred in 1;89 and Bhose bi#entennial Bas #elebrated in 1989 0Bhen 3 happened to be in !o+ania for resear#h2. 3 #hoose this #ase be#a&se 3 parti#ipated in it to so+e e4tent and thereby saB so+ething of hoB it Bas prod&#ed/Bhi#h #hanged +y interpretation/and be#a&se despite its relative invisibility, it ill&strates +any of the prod&#tion pro#esses Bithin !o+anian historiography &nder Cea&ses#&.

)arameters of the )roduction of .istor& in Socia"ist (omania

!o+anian history, like literat&re, Bas prod&#ed thro&gh individ&al and instit&tional rivalries for the reso&r#es that s&pported histori#al resear#h, and thro&gh arg&+ents abo&t the val&es that resear#h sho&ld p&rs&e. 1&#h rivalries Bere at least as politi#iIed as those in literat&re, oBing to the &n&s&ally #entral role assigned to history &nder C#a&s#s#&-s reign/&n&s&al even by the standards of =ar4ist%Leninist regi+es. - here Bere several reasons for this. 1o+e of the+ Bere of a <&irky, personal nat&re and others res&lted fro+ the regi+e-s internal #onsolidation and its international relations. he +ost e##entri# reason Bas that the brother of the !o+anian president, Feneral 3lie Cea&ses#&, had a tr&e avo#ational passion for the st&dy of historyL he pro+oted it and infl&en#ed its dire#tion fro+ his very poBerf&l vantage point. President Cea&ses#& hi+self e4hibited tre+endo&s interest in history also, b&t in his #ase it Bas not #lear hoB +&#h Bas enth&sias+ and hoB +&#h Bas strategy. here Bas roo+ for strategy be#a&se of historiography-s pla#e both in the #ond&#t of !o+ania-s international relations and in this leadership-s +ode of #ontrol. 3 Bill dis#&ss the first of these points briefly and the se#ond at greater length. At the +ost general level, histori#al referen#es often indi#ated a#t&al or intended relations Bith the poBers to Bhi#h a s+all #o&ntry like !o+ania is s&bNe#t. 3 ill&strated this in #hapter 1, and 3 Bo&ld add only that even in the 19;5s and 1985s, offi#ial state+ents abo&t !o+anian origins 0Bere !o+anians 'a#e%!o+an or p&rely 'a#ians2 revealed the !o+anian leadership-s feelings abo&t its proble+ati# indebtedness to the Eest and its tensions Bith the East. =ore i+portant, for +y p&rposes, Bere the #o&ntry-s international relations Bith i++ediate neighbors. Be#a&se the st&dy of history inevitably entails referen#e to a #o&n% HD!EA-1 !E(DL A*' HE P!D'UC 3D* D" H31 D!C 619 try-s territorial borders, historiography is part of the relations betBeen neighboring states. 3n !o+ania-s #ase, this has been aggravated by the instability of !o+ania-s bo&ndaries thro&gho&t the tBentieth #ent&ry. h&s, Bhat is or is not +entioned in the national history, the Bay #ertain events ar# treated, Bhi#h events ar# +entioned and Bhi#h left o&t, the kinds of +aps that a##o+pany an analysis/all these be#o+e signals abo&t n#ighborly relations. !o+ania has had grave territorial disp&tes Bith H&ngary and the 1oviet Union, H&ngary #lai+s parts of ransylvania held by !o+ania sin#e 1918, 9 and !o+ania #lai+s +ost of the 1oviets- =oldavian 1o#ialist !ep&bli# 0Bhi#h !o+anians #all Bessarabia2, a region disp&ted betBeen !o+anians and !&ssians for al+ost tBo #ent&ries and taken fro+ !o+ania in 1995. Dne #an often dete#t i+portant #hanges in the politi#al Binds bloBing betBeen !o+ania and the 1oviet Union in veiled !o+anian referen#es to Bessarabia 0se# )ing

19;7, 665%6912. =ore overt diplo+ati# #onfli#ts on the terrain of historiography have o##&rred betBeen !o+ania and H&ngary. H&ngarians lay #lai+ to ransylvania on the gro&nds that Bhen H&ngarians first settled there, in the tenth and eleventh #ent&ries, the area Bas 0they say2 e+pty of inhabitantsL this entitles H&ngarians to the land by right of #on<&est. !o+anians, in #ontrast, +aintain that they Bere not absent b&t Bere there all along, perhaps not visible in the +ost open spa#es b&t near the foothills, Bhi#h offered better prote#tion fro+ the endless Baves of no+adi# invaders fro+ the East. Ea#h side represents the other as no+adi# and itself as settled d&ring the #r&#ial tenth thro&gh tBelfth #ent&ries. As a res&lt of this disp&te, !o+anian historians have long been obsessed Bith proving #ontin&ity of !o+anian settle+ent fro+ at least !o+an ti+es to the present. his preo##&pation has been apparent a#ross the entire range of so#ial lo#ations, fro+ the @+ost politi#al@ historians to those +ost divor#ed fro+ poBer. Altho&gh H&ngarian%!o+anian disagree+ents on the terrain of historiography have been ro&tine for years, they flared into the Borst relations in postBar ti+es Bith the 198: p&bli#ation of a handso+ely prod&#ed three%vol&+e History of ransylvania, iss&ed in B&dapest &nder the aegis of the H&ngarian A#ade+y of 1#ien#es and bearing all the +arks of serio&s s#holarship. 15 he part on the =iddle Ages predi#tably gave the H&ngarian vieB that there Bere no !o+anian inhabitants in ransylvania Bhen the first H&ngarians arrived. he !o+anian rea#tion to the p&bli#ation Bas e4tre+e.@ Cea&ses#& gave a violent spee#h deno&n#ing these lies and #al&+nies 0se# 1#inteia, "ebr&ary 68, 665 HD!EA-1 !E(DL A*' HE P!D'UC 3D* D" H31 D!C 198;2, !o+anian historians Bere +obiliIed to prod&#e a <&i#k translation 0for restri#ted &se2 and a s#athing reb&ttal,16 Borkpla#es all over the #o&ntry Bere besieged Bith Party a#tivists holding e+ergen#y +eetings that deno&n#ed the @lies and #al&+nies@ and reaffir+ed the @s#i#n%tifi#ally #orre#t@ version, the +edia overfloBed Bith arti#les in Bhi#h historians deplored the falsehoods perpetrated by their H&ngarian #olleag&es, and a f&ll%page ad Bas taken o&t in the London i+es 0April ;, 198;, p. 82 entitled @A Cons#io&s "orgery of History &nder the Aegis of the H&ngarian A#ade+y of 1#ien#es.@ 3n this near%hysteri#al at+osphere, +any in the general p&bli# began to Borry that !o+ania Bas abo&t to be invaded by its neighbor and that ransylvania Bo&ld be lost again, as it had been fro+ 1995 to 1999 at the #ost of +&#h s&n#ring. 3t see+ed that offi#ial #ir#les in !o+ania Bere fanning this fear, perhaps to keep the ar+y Bhipped &p and at the ready 01hafir 19895, 9%$2.@ 'iatribes against H&ngary be#a+e fre<&ent in the press d&ring the late 1985s, in#reasingly linking a##&sations of territorial revisionis+ Bith the ideologi#al @revisionis+@ that so disting&ished H&ngary-s approa#h to solving the #risis of so#ialis+ fro+ the approa#h of the !o+anian Party 01hafir 1989Y, 72. h&s, in relations betBeen !o+ania and H&ngary, <&estions of territory and of politi#al and e#ono+i# refor+ be#a+e thoro&ghly knotted together Bith <&estions of history. Histo% riography Bas in effe#t the basi# gro&nd &pon Bhi#h those international relations Bere reprod&#ed. Beyond its i+portan#e in the international sphere, history Bas #r&#ial to the sy+boli# #le+ent in the !o+anian leadership-s sy+boli#%#&+%#o#r#ive +ode of #ontrol. History Bas a +aNor so&r#e of neB sy+boli# reso&r#es for the

apparat&s to deploy and a f&nda+ental site for reappropriating older ones. Cea&s#s#& referred to the histori#al profession as @the historians- front,@ in the +ilitary sense, vital to shaping both die national and the +aterialist fa#ets of his regi+e-s ideology and to so#ialiIing the p&bli# into a parti#&lar set of val&es. o #onsolidate this @front@ had re<&ired neB instit&tional arrange+ents that dreB the prod&#tion of historiography +ore and +ore tightly &nder #entral #ontrol.19 3nstit&tes of histori#al resear#h, together Bith their No&rnals, Bere #o+pletely reorganiIed in 1998L &niversity professorships Bere e+ptied and filledL first a preli+inary 0199;2 and then a +aNor neB synthesis of !o+anian history Bere #o++issioned 0fo&r vol&+es of the latter appeared d&ring the early 19:5s2. *o sooner Bas this str&#t&re in pla#e than it Bas +odified again, refle#ting the neB relations Bith the 1oviet Union and the reinsertion of national val&es into offi#ial politi#s. HD!EA-1 !E(DL A*' HE P!D'UC 3D* D" H31 D!C 661 Historians and histori#al fig&res Bho had been s&ppressed Bere rehabilitated and neB the+es Bere approved that had re#ently been anathe+a. he +ost &ne<&ivo#al sign of history-s apotheosis Bas the 19;9 Progra+ of the !o+anian Co++&nist Party, iss&ed for the Eleventh Party Congress, Bhi#h began Bith an eighteen%page s&++ary of !o+anian history. his s&++ary tra#ed events fro+ 'a#ian and !o+an ti+es thro&gh s&##essive foreign overlords and lo#al &prisings, the develop+ent of #apitalis+ and the proletariat, the #reation of the Party, and its rise to poBer in the Bar against fas#is+ 0se# !o+anian Co++&nist Party 19;$, :18/:7$2. "o&r years prior to this Congress, there had been a f&ll%s#ale reorganiIation of the !o+anian A#ade+y. 3t Bas shorn of responsibility for the vario&s instit&tes of history, Bhi#h Bere bro&ght +ore f&lly &nder the #ontrol of the Party-s Central Co++ittee. 1&bse<&ent +eas&res alloBed Ph.'.s to be given only to persons a##eptable to di#ir +&ni#ipal Party organiIation, pres#ribed the pre#ise #ontent of #o&rses to be ta&ght in history, and even fi4ed by fiat the dates of +aNor events to be #elebrated, in an ever%intensifying obsession Bith festive #o++e+orations 0see beloB2. 3n 19;: Cea&s#s#& #alled for a veritable fleet of neB Borks of histori#al synthesis, in#l&ding a +&lti%vol&+e treatise on the +ilitary history of the !o+anian people and yet another neB synthesis of the national history. he latter, to o##&py ten vol&+es, Bas to be g&ided by ideas in a fat bro#h&re draBn &p by a handf&l of Party historians and #ir#&lated to all the instit&tes parti#ipating in the proNe#t 0Feorges#& 1981, ;$2. he #entral pla#e of history%Briting for the leadership #reated an environ+ent of both opport&nities for and #onstraints on histori#al prod&#tion. Dn the one hand, the +ore Cea&s#s#& insisted on #ollaboration fro+ the @historiansfront,@ the +ore diffi#&lt it be#a+e for historians to Bork on s&bNe#ts other than those listed in the progra+ of the !o+anian Co++&nist Party or to oner interpretations other than those favored higher &p. People taking a different line Bo&ld find their Borks ine4pli#ably delayed at the p&blishing ho&seL in any #ase, all historians fo&nd their Britings +ore #losely s#r&tiniIed than Bere the Borks of s#holars in less strategi# fields. Dn the other hand, as one energeti# historian #onfided to +e, it Bas Bonderf&l to be a historian be#a&se so +any +ore reso&r#es Bere potentially available to that profession than to +ost others. Dne had only to knoB hoB to get the+. Historiography-s ideologi#al i+portan#e +eant that it #o&ld Bin relatively +ore of the #enter-s reso&r#es

and Bas relatively less e4posed to 666 HD!EA-1 !E(DL A*' HE P!D'UC 3D* D" H31 D!C 667 HD!EA-1 !E(DL A*' HE P!D'UC 3D* D" H31 D!C the @+arket-@ for#es 3 dis#&ssed in #onne#tion Bith literat&re. herefore, #o+petition Bithin history Bas, 3 believe, less +arket%based and +ore b&rea&#rati# in nat&re. Perhaps for this reason 0on the arg&+ent s&ggested in #hapter $2, there Bas so+eBhat less overt opposition to the regi+e a+ong historians than a+ong literati. his is not to say that all historians folloBed the @Party line@/far fro+ it, as the present #hapter Bill shoB/b&t their opposition Bas different in for+ fro+ that of Briters and #riti#s. Dne final and #r&#ial point abo&t !o+anian historiography is that nearly all !o+anian historians Bere prod&#ing a prod&#t that Bas by definition @indigenist,@ even tho&gh so+e of the+ did so by #anons derived fro+ the Eest. =ost of the+ Brote the history of their oBn land, not A+eri#an or Asian or Borld history, and it Bas of interest #hiefly to !o+anians and of +a4i+&+ &se to a !o+anian state. Be#a&se of this, !o+anian historians a&to+ati#ally prod&#ed so+ething of potential val&e to the politi#al apparat&s, so+ething Bhose details Bere readily appropriable no +atter hoB resistant an individ&al a&thor +ight be to instr&#tions, enti#e+ents, or fads. 3n this, historians differed so+eBhat fro+ those Briters and artists for Bho+ a +aNor ai+ Bas to #reate prod&#ts that Bo&ld have both lo#al and @&niverse signifi#an#e/!o+a% nian val&es that Bo&ld #onN&gate Bith the dile++as of h&+ankind +ore generally and therefore Bo&ld bring !o+anian realities to international attention. Altho&gh 3 Bo&ld not Bant to +ake too +&#h of this differen#e betBeen literat&re and history, both of Bhi#h +ight e+ploy Bestern te#hni<&es even for a Bork on indig#nist the+es, 3 believe that the differen#e +ade the politi#al apparat&s so+eBhat less an4io&s to @disable@ prod&#tion in history% Briting 0se# #hapter 62 than in other fields &ntil very late in the 1985s. 3t isolated and silen#ed historians so+eBhat less than Briters or philosophers, Bhose prod&#ts +ore easily slid o&t into that intolerable Ione independent of the #enter. 3 Bill ret&rn to this point at the end of the #hapter. he +oves to bring history ever +ore f&lly into the #ontrol of the Party apparat&s nevertheless o##&rred in #o&nterpoint Bith so+e #entrif&gal tenden#ies Bithin the dis#ipline. here Bas tension betBeen B&#harest and the provin#ial #apitals of Cl&N and lasi, Bhere +any s#holars resisted B&#harest-s repeated brea#hes of the regional division of labor, as historians in the #apital so&ght to i+pose interpretations of pheno+ena 0s&#h as regional histories2 that regional #enters feel better e<&ipped to handle.@@ o these #entrif&gal i+p&lses sho&ld be added the effe#ts of the 19;8 laB for greater self%finan#ing by #&lt&ral enterprises 0se# #hapter 72. his enabled #ertain entrepren#&rially +inded gro&ps 0parti#&larly in the provin#es2 to slip so+eti+es thro&gh the net of #ontrol, thereby aro&sing envy and ba#kbiting fro+ others. Beyond these #entrif&gal tenden#ies, the instit&tional str&#t&re of histori#al resear#h Bas itself so+eBhat frag+ented. he 19;8 En#y#lopedia of !o+anian Historiography re<&ired a f&ll thirty%fo&r pages to des#ribe all the instit&tions asso#iated Bith history, in#l&ding &niversities, resear#h instit&tes, +&se&+s, ar#hives, and so forth. hese instit&tions Bere ad+inistratively s&bordinate to vario&s s&perior bodies, Bhi#h ranged fro+ the =inistry of 'efense thro&gh the Co&n#il for C&lt&re and 1o#ialist Ed&#ation, the Party-s Central Co++ittee and

its s&bordinate A#ade+y of 1o#ial and Politi#al 1#ien#es, and the =inistries of Ed&#ation and 3nterior. Ehile this did not +ean real pl&ralis+ in the prod&#tion of history, it did leave roo+ for #o+petition a+ong parts of the b&rea&#ra#y that s&stained histori#al resear#h. "or e4a+ple, a r&+or #ir#&lated in 1989 #on#erning a #entral plan to &nite all history%prod&#ing establish+ents Bithin a single #entrally #ontrolled 3nstit&te of *ational History. As of 1989, hoBever, this had not o##&rred/ oBing, it Bas said, to fier#e opposition by the dire#tors of vario&s instit&tes Bhose positions Bo&ld have been lost in s&#h a +erger. 1: here did appear to be a +aNor #lash betBeen the instit&tes doing the history of the Party and +ilitary, on the one hand, and those doing !o+anian history +ore broadly, on the other. Behind it lay a Bholesale redefinition of the obNe#t of histori#al st&dy, as Party.+ilitary historians strove to integrate the history of the Party into the Bhole history of !o+anians instead of keeping these as tBo separate spheres. he neB obNe#t of st&dy Bas #alled @the entire people@ 0gntreg&l popor2%X ea#h +o+ent of !o+anian history Bas noB to be presented as leading ine4orably toBard the f&lfill+ent of !o+anians- destiny in the for+ation and g&idan#e of the Party. 3n this potential +erger of tBo instit&tionally separate histories, the <&estion Bas, Bho Bo&ld eng&lf Bho+K Eo&ld the Party.+ilitary instit&tes sBalloB &p the others or be sBalloBed the+selvesK his #o+petition <&ite probably stood behind a n&+ber of +novations and debates in the profession d&ring the 1985s.-; his is the #onte4t, then, for +y e4ploration of the debate over a rebellion led in 1;89 by the ransylvanian peasant Hor#a. 3t Bas a #onte4t in Bhi#h the politi#al #enter strove to do+inate the prod&#tion of history, in Bhi#h histori#al <&estions had inevitably international effe#ts, in Bhi#h instit&tes str&ggled for #ontrol over the history of !o+anians, and in Bhi#h idiosyn#rati# avo#ations Noined Bith strategi# 669 HD!EA-1 !E(DL A*' HE P!D'UC 3D* 5( H31 D!C +anip&lation of history and Bith deep patrioti# feelings of all !o+anian historians to for+ a highly politi#iIed environ+ent for history%Briting. 3n the re+ainder of this #hapter, 3 shoB hoB a spe#ifi# arg&+ent Bithin historiography Bas in part an arg&+ent over national identity, linked Bith international disp&tes. 3 arg&e that the e4a+ple ill&strates pro#esses thro&gh Bhi#h the prod&#tion of history entered +ore fir+ly into the #ontrol of the politi#al apparat&s and reinfor#ed both an ideology of the *ation and an ideology of knoBledge. hat is, 3 arg&e that debates s&#h as the one over Horea helped to strengthen Party r&le, despite the intentions of those Bho tho&ght they Bere opposing poBerL yet at the sa+e ti+e, 3 s&ggest, oppositional a#tivity a+ong historians nonetheless had pl&raliIing effe#ts.

The $e6ate Over .orea=s (evo"t1> T./ /?/NTS

3n the late 19;5s, the opening salvo Bas fired in Bhat Bas to be#o+e a battle over the ransylvanian peasant Hor#a. 19 his opening salvo #onsisted of the p&bli#ation of a +assive tBo%vol&+e s#holarly Bork entitled Horea-s Uprising. Benty years in the +aking, it Bas p&blished Bhen its a&thor. A#ade+i#ian 'avid Prodan fro+ ransylvania, dee+ed it ready, Bhi#h proved to be a feB

years before the event-s bi#entennial. he book Bas Bidely praised as definitive by s#holars all over !o+ania. Eithin tBo years, hoBever, #ertain other historians began to herald the #o+ing bi#entennial Bith arti#les or #hapters stating that Bhat Horea had led Bas not +erely an &prising b&t a revol&tion. his point of vieB re#eived its f&llest treat+ent in a vol&+e that hit bookstores N&st before the bi#entennial Beek, its title pro#lai+ing he Pop&lar !evol&tion &nder Horea-s Leadership. he a&thor, A#ade+i#ian 1tefan Pas#& 0also fro+ ransylvania2, in Bhose instit&te 3 Bas then doing resear#h, invited +e to attend the event that Bo&ld @la&n#h@ his innovation to the p&bli#, a historians- #onferen#e being held in Brad, a toBn near the village Bhere the revolt had broken o&t e4a#tly tBo h&ndred years before. A b&s took the parti#ipants/abo&t thirty%five s#holars fro+ resear#h instit&tes, +&se&+s, and &niversities all a#ross !o+ania, pl&s so+e #o&nty%level politi#al offi#ials/to the #onferen#e site. here, the HD!EA-1 !E(DL A*' HE P!D'UC 3D* D" H31 D!C 66$ +ayor of Brad greeted the+ Bith, @Eel#o+e to the #onferen#e on the peasant &prising, &h, revol&tion.@ Bo sessions of s#holarly papers folloBed, read to a&dien#es totaling abo&t three h&ndred people and reportedly #onsisting of tea#hers, so+e engineers, and vario&s f&n#tionaries.6@ Ehat they heard Bas a series of spe#ialist arg&+ents in elaborate A#ade+es#. =any of the papers, a##ording to one parti#ipant 0a professional historian Bell%versed in the history of the revolt2, i+pli#itly b&t not overtly #ontradi#ted points that Bo&ld later e+erge as #r&#ial to the debate. =any had no do&bt been Britten Bitho&t knoBing that the #onte4t Bo&ld +ake their on#e%&n#ontrov#rsial positions s&ddenly #ontentio&s. All b&t one paper title had the Bord @&prising@ in the printed progra+, b&t in their delivery tBo +ore speakers shifted their &sage fro+ that ter+ to the other. "olloBing these sessions, the visitors Bent by b&s to several villages in the area, i+portant sites in the revolt, to be +et by s+all #roBds of floBer% bearing, &nifor+ed #hildren and their peasant or +iner parents. Horea and his revolt be#a+e the o##asion of prestations betBeen the visitors and ea#h of these gro&ps, the #hildren offered songs or poe+s on revolt the+es, ansBered by spee#hes fro+ the s#holars and fro+ f&n#tionaries of die #o&nty and the lo#ality. he persons entr&sted Bith these spee#hes spoke of the event/e4 te+poreX and in si+ple ter+s a##essible to ordinary folk/as a revol&tion, the first in the s#ries of !o+anians-- so#ial and national str&ggles that led to so#ialis+. he a&dien#es varied in siIe fro+ abo&t tBenty to abo&t a h&ndred persons, +ost of the+ being tea#hers or peasant.Borker parents of the #hildren Bho greeted &s. At ea#h pla#e, ho+e+ade #akes and brandy +arked the event as a festive o##asion a#ross so#ial bo&ndariesL in so+e, perfor% +an#es of folk +&si# heightened the festive spirit. 3n nearly all, the gre#ters, a&dien#e, and hospitality #o++ittee had been kept Baiting for as +&#h as tBo ho&rs in the late D#tober #hill for the #v#r%+or#%d#layed arrival of the s#holarly ento&rage. he festivities res&+ed on the se#ond day Bith a @s#ientifi# plenary session,@ held in a large a&ditori&+ for an a&dien#e of five h&ndred to si4 h&ndred persons. he great +aNority of the+ al+ost #ertainly had so+e advan#ed ed&#ation, e4#ept for a n&+ber of high%s#hool st&dents 0perhaps 65 per#ent of the #roBd2.61 Dn the stage, a long table Bas de#ked o&t Bith a giant banner

anno&n#ing, @655 Cears 1in#e the Pop&lar Uprising Led by Hor#a@ 0the printed progra+ #alled it the @Uprising of the Peasants &nder Hor#a@2. 1eated at this table Bere a n&+ber of dignitaries, the +ayor of the toBnL an ar+y offi#er fro+ the 66: HD!EA-1 !E(DL A*' HE P!D'UC 3D* D" H31 D!C =ilitary Press, Bhi#h had iss&ed Pas#&-s bookL an ar+y general spe#ialiIing in historyL three &niversity professors fro+ !o+ania-s +aNor intelle#t&al #entersL Professor Pas#&L the first party se#retary and the se#retary for propaganda for the #o&nty 0its tBo +ost poBerf&l politi#al offi#ials2L the head of the #o&nty Co++ittee for C&lt&reL a resear#her fro+ B&#harest-s prestigio&s lorga History 3nstit&teL and the dire#tor of the #o&nty history +&se&+, organiIer of the affair.66 he party se#retary for propaganda opened the session, Bel#o+ing &s to the bi#entennial #elebration of the peasant &prising 0si#/se# note 182. After her #a+e the offi#er fro+ the =ilitary Press, Bho Bas to @la&n#h@ Pas#&-s book to the p&bli#. 3nvoking the tBo%h&ndredth anniversary of Hor#a-s revol&tion, he e4plained that the ar+y had a #&sto+ of s&pporting referen#e Borks of patrioti# #hara#ter and had approa#hed Pas#& to do so+ething Borthy of this event. He e+phasiIed the patrioti# senti+ents stirred by the bookL its aro&sing one-s love for the regions Bhere the revol&tion had taken pla#e and for the national borders thereL its proof that Hor#a-s revol&tion had ina&g&rated the #hain of so#ial and national revol&tions that had be#o+e per+anent feat&res of !o+anian history, #&l+inating in the #o+pletion of this str&ggle in o&r day, &nder the Co++&nist party. After hi+ #a+e Pas#& Bith the first of tBo long spee#hes. 3ts +aNor the+es Bere his book-s patrioti# #hara#ter, in no Bay #onfli#ting Bith its s#ientifi# val&eL its being based &pon neBly #olle#ted do#&+ents Wthis +eant that even tho&gh Prodan-s @definitive@ Bork Bas re#ent, advan#es in &nderstanding the revolt #o&ld be e4pe#ted as part of the progress of s#ien#eVL its being inspired by a spee#h of !o+anian President Cea&s#s#&, Bherein the event Bas ter+ed a revol&tionL and Hor#a-s having sa#rifi#ed hi+% self for the so#ial%national #a&se, prefig&ring later str&ggles that led to the Co++&nist vi#tory forty years ago. he +i#rophone Bas noB taken by the first party se#retary. Citing a different spee#h of Cea&s#s#& that &sed the Bord @&prising@ Uthis <&ote appeared on the printed progra+ as BellV and e+ploying that Bord thro&gho&t, he nonetheless set forth +any points of the arg&+ent for @revol&tion@, that the +ove+ent Bas not N&st a #lass a#tion b&t also a national +ove+ent and #ontrib&ted to the politi#al #a&se of the *ationL that it #overed a h&ge territory, not N&st a s+all areaL that it had the%+ost radi#al progra+ of its day, Bhi#h de+anded overthroBing the nobility, ta4ing the+, distrib&ting their lands, and so forth. Like several others, he invoked an inti+ate #onne#tion betBeen the present and HD!EA-1 !E(DL A*' HE P!D'UC 3D* D" H31 D!C 66; Hor#a-s &prising, seen as the start of the +odern era and as preparation for for+ing the &nitary !o+anian state. He noted that the &prising shoBed the peasantry-s progressive #hara#ter, sin#e it anti#ipated by five years +aNor prin#iples of the "ren#h !evol&tion. Eeaving his tapestry of talk s#a+l#ssly into the present, the first party se#retary e+phasiIed thro&gho&t it the proble+ of

national rights and that proble+-s sol&tion &nder the g&idan#e of the Co++&nist party. At the end of this spee#h #a+e a +o+ent of patrioti# e4altation, as #hildren in Pioneer &nifor+s bro&ght the p&bli# gratef&lly to its feet Bith re#itations of poetry and beating of dr&+s. Professor Pas#& then began his ne4t spee#h, e<&ating the defense of #o&ntry Bith the defense of the Uethni#V people and #rediting the peasantry Bith +&#h sa#rifi#e in this str&ggle. He re+inded his hearers that in ransylvania, oppression had been both so#ial 0#lass2 and national, for peasants Bere +ostly of one national gro&p and nobles of another. h&s, be#a&se any peasant str&ggle in ransylvania Bas also a national str&ggle, Hor#a-s +ove+ent Bas national in #hara#terL it be#a+e a revol&tion the +o+ent it delivered its radi#al &lti+at&+. hese people Bere not N&st a ragged peasant band, he insisted, b&t had tr&e +ilitary organiIation. UPas#& #ontin&ed on, draBing parallels betBeen the rebels- organiIation and that of the so#ialist state.V he revol&tion #overed a broad territoryL it envisioned not a restoration of an old order b&t #reation of a neB one Bithin a single ethni#ally &nified #o&ntry, bringing together a people that had been divided &nder different r&ling nations. his revol&tion Bas of s&#h a+plit&de that it be#a+e a E&ropean proble+. 3t voi#ed the #on#erns of the "ren#h !evol&tion five years ahead of that great event. And Bhen Hor#a Bas e4e#&ted, he #ried @3 die for the nation,@ #onfir+ing his role as a national +artyr. After this #a+e tBo spee#hes by &niversity professors, Bho did not state their disagree+ent Bith Pas#& overtly b&t #ontradi#ted his arg&+ents point by point, albeit in a #overed, +onotono&s A#ade+#s#. Both #alled the event an &prisingL both e+phasiIed that the peasant rebels Bere fighting only the #lass, not the national, str&ggle, the latter having been p&rely an intelle#t&als- and #leri#s#on#ern. Any other vieB +isreads the histori#al eviden#e, they #lai+ed, insisting that the &prising-s &ndeniable #onse<&en#es for the !o+anian national +ove+ent nonetheless i+ply nothing abo&t the peasants- intentions. hey #o&ld find no eviden#e at all that the rebels ai+ed to #reate an ethni#ally &nified #o&ntry/a +istaken vieB, they said, rep&diated in Prodan-s +ag% 668 HD!EA-1 !E(DL A*' HE P!D'UC 3D* D" H31 D!C isterial Bork. hey agreed that the &prising Bas indeed noted in E&rope b&t obNe#ted that it Bas in no Bay #o+parable Bith the "ren#h !evol&tion, for the so#ial str&#t&res of the tBo #ases Bere #o+pletely different. he se#ond of these spee#hes invoked a spirit of s#ientifi# responsibility toBard the peasant +asses Bho had sa#rifi#ed the+selves tBo h&ndred years before. "olloBing a short break, the session res&+ed Bith papers that #ontin&ed to air the sa+e arg&+ent, &s&ally in an &nderstated Bay, as so+e #alled the event an &prising and others a revol&tion. he sa+e points e+erged repeatedly, the event-s signifi#an#e in E&ropean history and parti#&larly in relation to the "ren#h !evol&tion, its territorial s#ope, the i+portan#e to be a##orded its radi#al &lti+at&+, Bhether it Bas a ragged peasant a#tion or a dis#iplined +ilitary one, its pla#e as +edieval vers&s +odern in the p#riodiIation of !o+anian history, and its #lass vers&s national #hara#ter, Bith i+pli#ations for the people-s revol&tionary reso&r#es.67 Con#l&ding five ho&rs of this plenary session, the head of the Co++ittee for C&lt&re read a long #able addressed to President C#a&s#s#& fro+ those asse+bled, thanking hi+ for giving s&#h

i+portan#e to !o+anian history and to the st&dy of the peasant &prising. his #onferen#e opened the floodgates to a veritable del&ge of #elebrations of Horea, Bhi#h filled the national +edia for the entire s&##eeding +onth and then abated so+eBhat, only to overfloB into the +edia again a bit later Bith the anniversary ofHor#a-s #apt&re and e4e#&tion. =any of the retrosp##tiv#s served as battl#gro&nds for the ideas of &prising and revol&tion, and in these the sa+e the+es s&rfa#ed ti+e and again, )orea-s role in the national str&ggle, his pre#eding the "ren#h !evol&tion, the radi#al &lti+at&+, the +ilitary organiIation, and so forth. 3n all these events, the @&prising@ position Bas &pheld by people 0often Prodan-s for+er st&dents2 other than Prodan hi+self, Bho +aintained a #o+plete p&bli# boy#ott of the Bhole affair. 69 A s+all sa+ple of events honoring the rebellion in#l&ded, spee#hes to open the &niversity yearL tBo long television fil+s 0#overing tBo evenings ea#h2 and a series of radio progra+sL e4hibits in s#hools and libraries all over the #o&ntryL sessions of st&dent essays abo&t the eventL dis#&ssions held by &niversity personnel for high s#hools, +ilitary offi#ers- gro&ps, fa#tory BorkersL a f&ll% length fil+, an opera, a play, and at least tBo novels, all prod&#ed for the bi#entennialL a theatri#al prod&#tion +o&nted by the ethnographi# +&se&+L and a sy+posi&+ at the ann&al +eeting of the !o+anian A#ade+y-s ransylvanian bran#h 0at Bhi#h so+eone Bas overheard to +&tter, @3-+ si#k to death of Hor#a@2.6-HD!EA-1 !E(DL A*' HE P!D'UC 3D* D" H31 D!C 669

M/+N#N*S O0 T./ $/B+T/

Ehat did the battle over Hor#a +ean, and Bhat does it say abo&t identity and the politi#s of !o+anian historiographyK HoB Bere the perfor+an#es s&++ariIed above prod&#edK Ehat p&rpose Bas a long%dead ransylvanian peasant serving for his historian%des#endantsK 3 begin ansBering these <&estions by asking abo&t the so#ial sit&ation of those involved and then looking at Bhat the ter+s of the debate i+ply abo&t national identity. "ro+ this 3 t&rn to Bhat this str&ggle over +eanings s&ggests abo&t !o+anian so#ialis+. Altho&gh the festivities of 1989 Bere not the first ti+e that Hor#a had be#o+e politi#ally &sef&l after his death 0in the interBar period he had @be#o+e@ not a revol&tionary b&t an e+peror 6:2, the so#ialist #onte4t of this +ore re#ent debate very +&#h affe#ted its prod&#tion and its syste+i# i+pli#ations.

The +ctors%
Any assess+ent of the signifi#an#e of this debate re<&ires &nderstanding Bho its parti#ipants Bere and Bhat instit&tional and so#ietal positions they held. 3ts +ost vigoro&s protagonists, Professors Prodan and Pas#& 0born in 1956 and 19192, Bere both professional historians trained by the sa+e professor prior to Eorld Ear 33. Altho&gh si+ilar in being +e+bers of the !o+anian A#ade+y and in their prolifi# o&tp&t, they differed fro+ one another in several respe#ts, of Bhi#h the folloBing are the +ost i+portant. Prodan, &nlike Pas#&, had long parti#ipated in a leftist intelle#t&al tradition and Bas a so#ial de+o#rat before the #o++&nists #a+e to poBer. Altho&gh never a Party +e+ber, he Bas for de#ades the pre+ier diale#ti#al +aterialist in his profession. He retired early 0in a politi#al disp&te2 fro+ the &niversity position he had re#eived in 1998, and he

Borked independently thereafter. Pas#& not only Bas a 0postBar2 Party +e+ber b&t Bas politi#ally very a#tive, +&#h +ore so than the re#l&sive Prodan. As the head of a n&+ber of professional organiIations and instit&tions, he #o&ld hardly avoid politi#s, oBing to the syste+-s great e+phasis on history.6; He Bas for several years a #andidate +e+ber of the Party-s Central Co++ittee, and he e4erted +&#h infl&en#e &pon the histori#al thinking of President Cea&Mes#&-s brother 3lie, Bhose prin#ipal #o&nselor he Bas r&+ored to be.68 =ore interdis#iplinary in orientation than Prodan, Pas#&-s Bork &s&ally ai+ed at #o+prehensive synthesis of e4isting s#holarship, Bith so+eBhat less ar#hival do#&+entation than one fo&nd in Prodan-s e4ha&stively do#&+ented and highly spe#ialist Borks. 675 HD!EA-1 !E(DL A*' HE P!D'UC 3D* D" H31 D!C 3n a Bord, Prodan-s rep&tation rested solely on his s#ientifi# a&thority, Bhereas Pas#&-s #ontained a large ad+i4t&re of politi#al stat&s. 69 Altho&gh 3 #annot say Bho instigated Hor#a-s @revol&tion@ after a half%#ent&ry of s#holarly and pop&lar referen#e to the event as an &prising, 3 #an shoB that it Bas &na+big&o&sly asso#iated Bith #ir#les #lose to the #enter of poBer, rather than +ore stri#tly a#ade+i# ones. =y basis for this is an e4tensive tho&gh not e4ha&stive #he#k of the instit&tional affiliations of persons p&bli#ly &sing one or the other of the labels @&prising@ or @-revol&tion.@ Co&nting only those to Bho+ 3 #o&ld assign a professional affiliation Bith history/that is, e4#l&ding No&rnalists as Bell as politi#ians reading ghost%Britten spee#hes/3 #lassified their perfor+an#es in the tBo sy+posia 3 attended and in their p&bli#ations 0books, neBs arti#les, and papers in a n&+ber of No&rnals, ranging fro+ that of the History Asso#iation to that of the Central Co++ittee-s History 3nstit&te2.151 pla#ed instit&tions into tBo gro&ps, 012 those ad+inistratively atta#hed to the Co++&nist party and the =inistries of 'efense and 3nterior 0Bhi#h in#l&ded the poli#e2, and 062 those &nd#r th# =inistry of Ed&#ation, Co&n#il for C&lt&re, and !o+anian A#ade+y. his gro&ping refle#ts +y vieB that the strategi# #ore of r&le in !o+ania #onsisted, by that ti+e, of #on#entrations of for#e, together Bith the PartyL the other instit&tions Bere relatively +ore distant fro+ orthodo4y, #ontrol, and international politi#s. he gro&ping also #onfor+s to fig&re 6 in #hapter 6, politi#al stat&s being asso#iated Bith @strategi# #ore@ instit&tions and s#ientifi# a&thority Bith the others. "ig&re 9 shoBs +y vieB of Bhere a feB persons in the debate Bere sit&ated in the field th&s defined. =y sa+pling t&rned &p forty%five professional historians Bho had Britten or prono&n#ed on the s&bNe#t of Horea sin#e the appearan#e of Prodan-s book and Bhose instit&tional affiliations 3 kneB. Df the forty%five, 71 per#ent &sed the ter+ @revol&tion,@ and ;1 per#ent of the+ fell in the @strategi# #ore@ instit&tions. hese people in#l&ded the head of the History 3nstit&te of the Central Co++ittee and the editors of that instit&te-s spe#ialist No&rnalL the tBo historians fro+ that instit&te Bho Bere Bidely rep&ted to be virt&al #o&nselors to the Party leadership on +atters histori#al, as Bell as Bat#hdogs over all history books p&blished 0their te4tbook #ited parts of Pas#&-s arg&+ent on Horea verbati+2L71 another ar+y%general historianL and tBo of the three historian%+e+bers of the Central Co++ittee 0the third Barned2. Df the al+ost tBo%thirds of the forty%five Bho opted for @&prising,@ 9: per#ent Bere in

HD!EA-1 !E(DL A*' HE P!D'UC 3D* DE H31 D!C 671 PO H * LIT I IC G AL ST * AT US N! CEAU"ESC * I! FIRST PARTY PAS CU#S The arrow marks the direction L O* W * AUDIENCE * VILLAGERS AND LOW * * PAS

* * * *

UNIVER PROFESSO RESERCHE PRO HIGH *

CULTURAL$SCIENTIFIC$CREATIVE AUTHORITY

@ he arroB +arks the dire#tion aspired to by people sBit#hing to @revol&tion.-1ee note 69 for this +odifi#ation of the label on tlie hori4ontal a4is. "ig&re 9 he 1pa#e of Politi#al 1tat&s and C&lt&ral A&thority in History%Eriting. Appro4i+ate lo#ations of 1ele#ted Parti#ipants in the 'ebate over Horea. 0A&thor-s esti+ations, not ne#essarily refle#ting vieBs of parti#ipants the+selves.2 instit&tions distant fro+ the #ore/&niversities, resear#h instit&tes, regional +&se&+s. 3t therefore do#s not see+ inappropriate to se# @revol&tion@ as an idea having #&rren#y in, if not a#t&ally introd&#ed fro+, the highest r&ling #ir#les, Bhether at their pet historians- oBn initiative or thro&gh g&ided s&ggestion.@ he obvio&s <&estion then is, Bhy did top politi#al #ir#les/or so+e seg+ents of the+/Bish to sponsor this innovationK Ehat ideologi#al and politi#al Bork Bas it doing for the+K Ehat sorts of divergent #lai+s, and abo&t Bhat areas of !o+anian life, Bere b&ried in the points being disp&tedK hese <&estions have several possible ansBers, largely spe#&lative, sin#e Be #annot dire#tly e4plore the innovators- #ons#io&s intentions d76=/nor Bo&ld an ansBer red&#e to 676 HD!EA-1 !E(DL A*' HE P!D'UC 3D* D" H31 D!C these, in any #ase. "or p&rposes of this #hapter, the +ost i+portant ansBers are those relating to definitions of !o+anian national identity and the defense of professional standards. Dther i+portant links to <&estions of =ar4ist% Leninist theory ar# #overed in 1i++onds%'&k# 0198;, 199%6512. he signifi#an#e of @revol&tion@ for a Party fo&nded on =ar4is+ is #r&#ial to &nderstanding the debate over Hor#a in its entirety, b&t +y ai+ here being so+eBhat less #o+prehensive, 3 refer readers to 1i++onds%'&k# for that
1 )atrine (erdery started her analysis &sing the debate abo&t na+ing the HoriaOs &prise a revol&tion 0i. e.2 a pre#&rsor of the "ren#h revol&tion, or N&st a revolt. he party line Bas to enhan#e the first interpretation to &nderline the revol&tionary tradition of !o+anians and at the sa+e ti+e to &se this brevol&tionh in the national +etanarrative abo&t !o+anians, a sort of indigeniIation of the =ar4ist theory reading national revolution instead of revolution.

dis#&ssion. 3 note only that the +erger of Party history Bith !o+anian history entailed #onstr&#ting a series of @revol&tions@ prefig&ring the #o++&nist oneL Horea-s @revol&tion@ Bas #learly to be one step in this series.7$

The '(evo"ution' and Nationa" #dentit&%

Professor Pro%dan-s book on Hor#a did not intend to +ake any state+ents abo&t !o+anian national identity. *otBithstanding his passionate and deeply rooted national senti+ents, his ai+ in the book Bas to ill&+inate part of the history of doss str&ggle, Bhi#h Bo&ld later be Noined Bith the national str&ggle led by intelle#t&als 0se# Prodan 19;1, 19892. Professor Pas#&-s reply, hoBever, transfor+ed the dis#&ssion by bringing it into the lineage of the de#ades%long arg&+ents on !o+anian identity and the national essen#e, s&++ariIed in #hapter 1. his Bas #learest in the arg&+ent that Horea-s revol&tion pre#eded that of "ran#e and thereby bro&ght !o+ania into the +odern era/a #lai+ that +ade eighteenth%#ent&ry ransylvanian peasant so#iety the +ost progressive in the Borld, after A+eri#a. 1&#h a #lai+ Bas at one and the sa+e ti+e an i+pli#it state+ent of de#oloniIation Bith respe#t to the 1oviet Union and a ref&sal to a#knoBledge Eestern E&rope-s leading infl&en#e. 3t insisted that !o+anians #an a#hieve +aNor so#ial progress on their oBn, even ahead of other areas #onsidered to be +ore poBerf&l or progressive. his #lai+ Bas all the +ore striking, of #o&rse, for being +ade N&st prior to the bi#entennial #elebrations in "ran#e. Dne +ight even se# Pas#&-s arg&+ent as not si+ply an @aberration@ based in Party #ir#&+stan#es b&t a ne#essary rea#tion against the hege+ony of "ran#e in E&rope-s self%&nderstanding 0#f. ro&illot 19892. Asserting that !o+anian peasants anti#ipated the "ren#h !evol&tion Bas a variant ofindigenis+, to &se the appropriate #onte+porary ter+, it Bas openly proto#hronist. 3ts #entral proposition Bas @!o+ania first,@ or @Ee do not stand Bith any of yo& Easterners or Eesterners.@ his is Bhat it +eant to say !o+anian peasants anti#ipated 0i.e., Bere not infl&en#ed by, a#hieved on their oBn2 s&#h +aNor Best% HD!EA-1 !E(DL A*' HE P!D'UC 3D* D" H31 D!C 677 ern develop+ents as the prin#iples of the "ren#h !evol&tion. A si+ilar assertion of priority/this ti+e over the 1oviet Union/Bas i+pli#it in the point abo&t !o+ania-s @entering the +odern era,@ departing earlier than neighboring !&ssia fro+ a state of ba#kBardness.7: his proto#hronist position on Horea Bas a #lear signal, then, to the Eest as Bell as to the East, that despite overBhel+ing debts to the Eest and in#reased trade and #redits Bith the 1oviets, !o+ania intended to be vassal to no one.7; Besides +aking a proto#hronist state+ent to East and Eest, Pas#&-s @revol&tion@ #onstit&ted a dire#t provo#ation to neighboring H&ngary. his is +ost evident in tBo points fro+ the #onferen#e above, assertions of the rebellion-s Bide territorial e4tent and of its having not solely #lass obNe#tives b&t also e4pli#it national ones. he borders Pas#& proposed Bent right to the present national border Bith H&ngary and even so+eBhat beyond, in#l&ding the entire area of ransylvania that is still #ontested by H&ngarian irredentists. herefore, the arg&+ent for @revol&tion@ aired indisp&tably international #lai+s of an aggressive sort. Calling the event a revol&tion that Bas not only #lass b&t national in #hara#ter +ade the #lai+s espe#ially strong 0in the interpretation of so+e s#holars Bith Bho+ 3 spoke2, for this Bas a to&gher state+ent against

H&ngarians, Bho Bere then r&ling the area and Bho still disp&te the borders. 3nherent in the idea of revol&tion is a degree of #lass%#ons#io&sness and pre+editated intent that &pris#rs +ay la#kL this stronger #ons#io&sness is a stronger indi#t+ent of the inN&sti#es e4perien#ed &nder oppressive H&ngarian r&le. he arg&+ent for revol&tion #ontained an anti%H&ngarian state+ent of another sort as Bell, if Horea-s +ove+ent is presented as a national +ove+ent, then one #an no longer arg&e that all +e+bers of the e4ploited gro&ps Noined to resist oppression in @brotherly@ str&ggle, Bitho&t regard for national differen#es, as had been arg&ed in earlier so#ialist te4ts. 78 h&s, H&n% garians had #eased to be revol&tionary @brothers.@ he a&dien#e intended for this arg&+ent Bo&ld appear to be a large one. 3t in#l&ded not N&st the peasants and +iners in Brad, and not N&st those gro&ps in !o+ania Bho regarded the defense of the *ation as their +oral task 0a +aNor part of the self%definition of East E&ropean intelligentsias past and present2, b&t an international a&dien#e as Bell. Eviden#e for the last is that pa+phlets p&bli#iIing the @revol&tionary@ vieB Bere distrib&ted at an international #onferen#e held in B&#harest that s&++er, attended by a n&+ber of Bestern s#holars. he @revol&tion@ Bas th&s not +erely a #andidate for a##eptan#e into the p&bli#-s 679 HD!EA-1 !E(DL A*' HE P!D'UC 3D* D" H31 D!C beliefs abo&t their past, a legiti+ation of their Party, or an appeal for s&pport fro+ others in the eliteL it Bas also a veiled a#t of territorial aggression. 7--

The '3prising5' Science5 and /urope%

"or intelle#t&als Bhose s#ientifi# a&thority Bas less +i4ed Bith politi#s, these iss&es of international relations Bere either of no interest or &na##eptably phrased. Ehat +attered to the+ Bere, on the one hand, a defense of @s#holarly +ethods@ and @s#ientifi# integrity,@ g&aranteed by separating s#ien#e fro+ politi#s, and on the other hand, their relationship to E&rope. he relation of s#ien#e to politi#s Bas the iss&e +ost often stated by the partisans of @&prising@ Bith Bho+ 3 dis#&ssed the debate. 0Co+pare the i+portan#e of the @a&tono+y of the aestheti#@ for antiproto%#hronists, in #hapter $.2 hey Bere #on#erned, first, to defend proper &s# of s#ientifi# ter+inology, arg&ing that Pas#&-s position violated standard =ar4ist &sage. 3ndeed, this Bas Prodan-s +ain #o+plaint, he fo&nd la&ghable the atte+pt to apply the ter+ @drevol&tion@ to an event that so #learly defied the #hief theoreti#al #hara#teristi#s of one 0it failed to bring in a neB so#ial order, had no #lass leadership prepared to effe#t the transition to s&#h an order, and #onsisted overBhel+ingly of peasants/Bho+ =ar4 saB as a nonr#vol&tionary #lass2. 1e#ond, the @&prising@ gro&p Bas #on#erned Bith assessing events properly in #onte4t and interpreting eviden#e in a s#holarly +anner. hey ref&sed to se# the revolt as part of the national 0rather than #lass2 str&ggle, be#a&se they Bere #onvin#ed that this si+ply did not fit the so#ial #onte4t of the ti+es and involved the Borst sort ofpresentis+. =ost proponents of @&prising@ a##epted as definitive Prodan-s Beighing and reNe#tion of the eviden#e for nationalist goals a+ong the peasant rebelsL they #onsidered his s#ientifi# N&dg+ent i+pe##able. As for Horea-s anti#ipating the "ren#h !evol&tion, this offended not only their idea of proper #onte4t b&t also their sense of proportion, there Bas si+ply no apt #o+parison betBeen the so#ial str&#t&res of, and the

#onse<&en#es iss&ing fro+, the tBo #ases. 3n the opinion of the &prising gro&p, then, the revol&tionaries- perversion of these s#ientifi# a4io+s Bas a politi#ally +otivated #orr&ption of s#ien#e/a N&dg+ent the revol&tionaries of #o&rse re% Ne#ted. 3n Pas#&-s first spee#h 0above2, he openly avoBed the har+onio&s #oe4isten#e of s#ien#e and patriotis+L +oreover, he often #riti#iIed Prodan for BithdraBing fro+ p&bli# life, saying this Bas an abdi#ation of the #ivi# responsibility any intelle#t&al +&st f&lfill. 3n the eyes of the &prising gro&p, it Bas not N&st s#ien#e that had to HD!EA-1 !E(DL A*' HE P!D'UC 3D* D" H31 D!C 67$ be defended b&t the gro&p-s sense of its intelle#t&al heritage, ins&lted by the indig#nis+ of the arg&+ent #on#erning the "ren#h !evol&tion. "or +any !o+anian intelle#t&als in both past and present, #&lt&ral ties Bith E&rope have been a +aNor val&e. he Eest has provided the+ Bith literat&res and te#hni<&es f&nda+ental both as professional tools and as state+ents of identity against the barbarians in the East. he !o+ania%first proto#hronis+ of Horea-s @revol&tion@ &nder+ined val&es that people in the @&prising@ gro&p held dear for the+selves and their #o&ntry. 3n a sense, the entire debate over Hor#a boiled doBn to the steadfast adheren#e of that gro&p to val&es they asso#iated Bith the idea of E&rope and Enlighten+ent s#ien#e, ideas Bhose vigor a+ong +any East E&ropean intelle#t&als has often str&#k Bestern observers Bith tre+endo&s and poignant for#e 0se# )&nd#ra 19892. he @s#ien#e@ Bhose e#lipse they feared Bas si+ply one of +any pan%E&ropean val&es to Bhi#h they Bere deeply atta#hed. Ehat e+erges fro+ the str&ggle over Horea, then, perhaps &ne4pe#tedly, is a debate over dis#iplinary pra#ti#es and, alongside it, an arg&+ent abo&t !o+ania-s identity in the Borld. 1o+e parti#ipants e+phasiIed ti#s and val&es rooted in Eestern E&ropean #iviliIation, #onsidering the others- disregard for these val&es as barbaris+. hey Bere defending a notion of !o+ania and of intelle#t&al pra#ti#e rooted in s#ientifi# a&thority &ntaint#d Bith politi#s. Dthers, preo##&pied perhaps Bith !o+ania-s deli#ate international sit&ation betBeen eastern and Bestern #reditors, spoke for a !o+ania independent of all alle% gian#es and a s#ientifi# a&thority based in politi#al #onsiderations.

T.@ )(O$3CT#ON O0 T./ $/B+T/8 #N$#?#$3+1 +N$ #NST#T3T#ON+1 COM)/T#T#ON

3 have des#ribed above a str&ggle betBeen tBo gro&ps of historians, &sing largely the ter+s that appeared in their arg&+ents and referring to their overt behavior. 3 Bo&ld noB like to spe#&late abo&t the #o+petitive pro#esses fro+ Bhi#h, 3 believe, Horea-s #elebration e+erged. =y spe#&lations rest on those old ethnographi# standbys, int&ition, overheard gossip, and r&+or. he tBo #o+petitive for+s 3 dis#&ss ar# individ&al +obility strivings 0si+ilar to those dis#&ssed in #hapter $2 and #o+petition a+ong the instit&tions that prod&#ed history%Briting. =y obNe#tive in these re+arks is to shoB that notBithstanding !o+ania-s high degree of #entral #ontrol, the syste+ Bas also 67: HD!EA-1 !E(DL A*' HE P!D'UC 3D* D" H31 D!C per+eated Bith anar#hy and #o+petition, aspe#ts of so#ialis+-s @Beak state@

0see #hapter 62. "or so+e readers, this arg&+ent +ay #o+e as a s&rprise. HoB, given Horea-s &bi<&ity, #o&ld it be said that the #enter Bas BeakK 3t is in dealing Bith <&estions s&#h as this that no s#r&tiny of the prod&#ts of !o+anian #&lt&re/ the sort of +aterial &sed in +any politi#al analyses of these syste+s/#an s&bstit&te for &nderstanding hoB the prod&#ts ar# prod&#ed. Hor#a Bas &bi<&ito&s pre#isely be#a&se the regi+e Bas relatively Beak. 3ts +ain #ontrib&tion to his e4#essive #o++e+oration resided in 012 its insisten#e that #adres of all sorts give ever%in#reasing eviden#e of +assive a#tivityL 062 its provision of at least so+e f&nds for s&#h a#tivityL and 072 the Bell%knoBn offi#ial fondness for rit&als #elebrating se#&lar heroes and dates, espe#ially an obsession Bith #ertain kinds of ro&nd n&+bers 015. 6$, $5, 155, 655, et#.2 0see Binns 19;9%19852. Dn#e these general dire#tives and s&pports be#a+e part of the definition of the Borld for the average !o+anian, in a so#ietal #onte4t of shrinking reso&r#es and +&#h%intensified #o+petition for the+/the sit&ation after the +id 19;5s/then +ost of the res&lting behavior #a+e fro+ so#iety-s +e+bers and not fro+ the dire#tives of a poBer #on#entrated at the top. Horea-s bi#entennial Bas a great e4a+ple of hoB to flee#e the state, part of vario&s people-s efforts to b&ild and feather their oBn nests or p&rs&e their oBn individ&al and instit&tional obNe#tives at state e4pense. Ea#h of the events #elebrating Hor#a had to be organiIed by so+eone, a party a#tivist fro+ a s#hool or fa#tory, the editor of a press, the dire#tor of a +&se&+ or library, the head of an instit&te or fil+ st&dio, the feat&res editors of the +any neBspapers and +agaIines, the leader of a st&dent history #ir#le. 1o+eti+es these people had re#eived a dire#tive fro+ their s&periors/also driven by an a#tivity plan. his Bas #o++on for holidays that Bere +andatory fields of politi#al a#tivity, s&#h as the dates of !o+anian independen#e or of liberation fro+ fas#is+, b&t Horea-s revolt did not appear to be a +andatory field of this kind. *evertheless, any +&se&+ dire#tor, instit&te head, fa#tory% level Party a#tivist, or feat&res editor #onstr&#ting an a#tivity plan for the year kneB that s&#h a signifi#ant date in national history Bo&ld be a s&re%fire Binner in the #o+petition for f&nds and for @broBnie points@ Bith those higher &p.95 Dne Bo&ld have to have been a fool not to #elebrate Hor#a, Bhen all the syste+-s tenden#ies Bere p&tting +ore and +ore press&re on dire#tors of #&lt&ral instit&tions and a#tivists and intelle#t&als to p&ff &p their dossiers, raise their prod&#tivity, or lose their Nobs.9HD!EA-1 !E(DL A*' HE P!D'UC 3D* D" H31 D!C 67; hat the Hor#a e4travaganIa #a+e in part fro+ N&st s&#h #areerist +otives Bas bro&ght ho+e to +e in a #as&al #onversation Bith one organiIer of a @Horea spe#ta#&lar,@ Bho des#ribed his tena#io&s fight to e#t approval and f&nds for it and the efforts that Bere re<&ired of hi+ to N&stify Bhy his parti#&lar enterprise sho&ld have a #lai+ to Hor#a. He told +e <&ite bl&ntly his +otives for doing so, sin#e the p&bli# had relatively high interest in Hor#a, his spe#ial event Bo&ld bring hi+ a @profit@ in ti#ket sales, essential to +itigating his +&se&+-s desperate e#ono+i# straits. Fiven hoB &nne#essary this gentle+an-s revelations Bere/it Bo&ld have been easier for hi+ to insist, as +ost !o+anians did 0espe#ially to foreigners2, that the govern+ent Bas #oer#ing this perfor+an#e fro+ hi+/3 a+ in#lined to believe his story. he

e4a+ple shoBs to Bhat e4tent Horea-s herois+ and +artyrdo+ had be#o+e a reso&r#e for advan#ing individ&al and instit&tional #areers by preying on the state, given the environ+ent the leadership had provided. 3n this instan#e, the persons +ost an4io&s to #oloniIe Hor#a Bere b&rea&#rats and intelle#t&als 0in#l&ding Party a#tivists in instit&tions2, the gro&ps in !o+ania +ost likely to t&rn nationalis+ and national history to their oBn &ses.96 he fate of Horea-s rebellion in C#a&s#s#&-s !o+ania reveals for &s that so#iety-s very pe#&liar #hara#ter, in Bhi#h e4#essive #entraliIation Bas yoked Bith e4tre+e anar#hy. 3n Horea-s #ase, the anar#hy #a+e fro+ +&ltiple &n#oordinated #oloniIations of his rebellion, in#l&ding those by Briters, a#tivists, ad+inistrators, ar+y and Party historians, and petty b&rea&#rats Bho staged the five +onths of #elebration. he #entraliIation, on the other hand, reveals itself in the Bay ea#h of these gro&ps saB its f&nds, per+issions, +obility, re#ognition, and so forth as #o+ing.roB the top. CentraliIation of the reso&r#es ne#essary to s&rvival en#o&raged pre#isely the sorts of perfor+an#es Horea evoked. Cet this Bas a very far #ry fro+ a totalitarian regi+e-s i+posing its Bill on intelle#t&als and &sing the+ to legiti+ate its r&le. 97 And the pi#t&re that e+erges/of ra+pant #onfli#t as gro&ps #o+peted for the reso&r#es ne#essary to s&rvive and +ove forBard/is a +&#h less orderly pi#t&re than one shoBing so#iety on the r&n before a poBerf&l Party, even tho&gh in so+e #onte4ts so+e of the ti+e so+e gro&ps in the Party &ndeniably had the &pper hand. 1o+e of the #o+petitiveness 3 have N&st des#ribed refle#ted individ&alsan4iety to i+prove their oBn positionsL so+eti+es it Bas also #o+bined Bith their a+bitions for the instit&tions that s&pported the+. he infor+ation available to +e enables +e to do little +ore than g&ess abo&t the latter. 1&#h g&esses are nonetheless Borth +aking, if 3 a+ 678 )D!EA-1 !E(DL A*' HE P!D'UC 3D* D" H31 D!C right to s&ggest that the spe#ial position of historiography in #&lt&ral prod&#tion +ade it s&bNe#t +ore to b&rea&#rati# and instit&tional #o+petitive pro#esses than to the <&asi%+ark#t ones dis#&ssed in #hapter $. his Bo&ld +ake the pro#esses 3 a+ abo&t to s&ggest proportionately +ore signifi#ant in shaping #&lt&ral politi#s in historiography than in other do+ains. Behind Hor#a-s e4travaganIa, 3 believe, lay the str&ggle a+ong instit&tes of history, +entioned earlier in this #hapter. Eith the in#orporation of the history of the Party into the history of the @entire people,@ there ens&ed a +aNor battle betBeen the Party History 3nstit&te 0and Bhat 3 believe Bere its allies in =ilitary History2 and the other instit&tes of history, to #ontrol resear#h into this neB obNe#t. he @revol&tionary@ innovation served an offensive by Party%based historians, by e+phasiIing the role of +ilitary organiIation in the peasant revolt99 and by +aking Horea a pre#&rsor of the Party-s revol&tionary str&ggle. hese historians #o&ld then link Hor#a-s revol&tion Bith their interpretation of other events in Bhi#h they invoked a @tradition---- of the @str&ggle of the entire people,@ #onstr&#ting a &nitary, organi# entity +ade &p of the ar+y and Party and entire people 0see, e.g., 3. C#a&s#s#& #t al., 198$, 97, 151, 1762.9$ hro&gh the @revol&tion,@ these historians appropriated Horea into their oBn genealogy. hat the innovation Bas la&n#hed by so+eone not in a Party or =ilitary History 3nstit&te 0albeit so+eone Bith inti+ate ti#s to Feneral 3li# C#a&aes#&2 does not disprove +y hypothesis, for on#e the @revol&tion@ Bas

o&t, it still had to #olle#t s&pporters. hose it #olle#ted had their oBn agendas. 3t is even possible that the Party and =ilitary History 3nstit&tes a#t&ally #o++issioned Pas#&-s book on Hor#a-s revol&tion. 1&#h, at least, Bas the #lai+ of the book-s editor, as already +entioned. his s&ggests the additional possibility that instit&tional str&ggles Bere tied Bith Bars a+ong different p&blishing ho&ses. he p&blishing ind&stry Bas no +ore &nified than Bas histori#al resear#h, different presses had different relations to #ensorship, Bere s&bordinated to different seg+ents of the b&rea&#ra#y, and #o&ld e4pe#t varying levels of s&bvention. Energeti# a#tion by a p&blishing ho&se #o&ld in#rease its poBer relative to other ho&ses and its standing in the b&rea&#ra#y at large. herefore, dire#tors and editors strove not espe#ially 0or not only2 for +ore reso&r#es fro+ the #enter b&t for prestigio&s a#<&isitions that +ight en% able the+ to se#&re other prestigio&s titlesL they a+assed reso&r#es, fro+ any <&arter, that #o&ld be transfor+ed into bigger proNe#ts and +ore a#tivity. 3n a Bord, they a#ted like seg+ents of the allo#ative b&% HD!EA-1 !E(DL A*' HE P!D'UC 3D* D" H31 D!C 679 r#a&#ra#y des#ribed in #hapter 6. he i+pet&s for s&#h a#<&isitions Bo&ld be only in part to help a press stay in the bla#k &nder the r&les of @self%finan#ing.@ =ore i+portant, s&#h a#<&isitions Bo&ld enlarge that p&blisher-s allo#ative #apa#ity. 3 base this proposal on an overheard #onversation in Bhi#h the dire#tor of a +aNor p&blishing ho&se dis#&ssed at length Bith one of his historian a&thors the signifi#an#e of his having a#<&ired for his press 0and this Bas hoB he phrased it2 the rights to reediting the enor+o&s o&tp&t of interBar historian *i#ola# lorga. Ehen 3 observed that it so&nded like a h&ge heada#he be#a&se of all the Bork, he replied tri&+phantly that far +ore i+portant Bas the prestige this Bo&ld bring his p&blishing ho&se and the additional a&thors he #o&ld hope to attra#t thereby. 3n short, it Bo&ld a&g+ent his poBer as a b&rea&#rat. By analogy, the =ilitary Press that p&blished Pas#&-s book had a#<&ired for itself a +aNor @na+e,@ an a&thor appre#iated by +any in the broader p&bli# and in the history profession. his press enNoyed spe#ial stat&s, its books did not pass thro&gh the &s&al #ensorship #hannels, and it Bas in a strong position to bring o&t daring Borks, b&t it s&ffered so+eBhat fro+ the ar+y-s generally negative i+age in the intelle#t&al Borld. A#<&iring Pas#&-s book +ay have been part of an instit&tional strategy to brighten &p its list. his +ight also fa#ilitate its a##ess to +ore reso&r#es, the editor of Pas#&-s book hi+self #o+plained to +e that third%rate novels #o&ld #o++and paper to p&blish 85,555 to 155,555 #opies, Bhereas he had to Bage veritable Bar to get a press r&n of $5,555 for a history book. Having heard aBe%inspiring tales of another editor-s vigilante efforts to se#&re the paper for a large press r&n of a fat book, 3 find it easy to believe that editors and dire#tors of p&blishing ho&ses Bo&ld hat#h plots for s&#h ends as in#reasing their #lai+s to paper. !eaders skepti#al of this pi#t&re of instit&tional s#he+ing and re%so&r##% +ong#ring have perhaps not dr&nk eno&gh brandy in the #o+pany of !o+anians e+ployed in prod&#ing #&lt&re. Dne need not believe all the details to se# &sef&l patterns in hoB they spoke abo&t their Bork, dire#tors Bho p&lled strings to #o++andeer an entire railBay #ar and Bent Bith it in person to the paper fa#tory, so as to transport and store the paper a typesetter re<&iredL s#holars Bho Borked o&t spe#ial resear#h #ontra#ts 0@self%finan#ing@2 that

generated independent +onies Bith Bhi#h they p&t o&t spe#ial p&bli#ations, &sing a tri#k of en&+eration to e4#eed five%fold the plan originally approvedL a&thors Bho pi#ked &p their +an&s#ript fro+ the #ensor-s offi#e and, en ro&te to the typesetter, s&bstit&ted &n#ensor#d pages +arked identi#ally to others 695 HD!EA-1 !E(DL A*' HE P!D'UC 3D* D" H31 D!C that they p&lled o&t. he Bork of #&lt&ral prod&#tion Bas f&ll of si+ilar stories, instit&tional and individ&al. Ehen 3 asked tBo s&#h #&lt&re%bandits Bhat Bas at stake for the+, they replied, @3t-s a str&ggle Bithin historyA@ @ o obtain infl&en#eK@ 3 asked. @*o, a str&ggle to deter+ine the f&t&re #o&rse that !o+anian historiography Bill take.@ Dne Bo&ld have gotten this sa+e ansBer, and N&st as passionately felt, fro+ persons on #ither side of the Hor#a debate. Behind the reply Bere stakes s&#h as Bho Bo&ld Brite the s#hool +an&als 0labeling Hor#a-s event a revol&tionK2 and Bho Bo&ld for+ the histori#al #ons#io&sness of the ne4t generation, or the dis#iplinary pra#ti#es and areas of #on#ern of yo&ng resear#hers.

The Centra"ization of .istoriograph& under )o"itica" Contro"

3n #hapter 6 3 presented a +odel of real so#ialis+ as driven by a tenden#y for reso&r#es to #on#entrate &nder the #ontrol of the politi#al apparat&s. Both there and in #hapter $ 3 so&ght to shoB that one of the #hief +e#hanis+s for this o&t#o+e Bas #o+petition Bithin the intelle#t&al Xspa#e,@ rather than betBeen @s#holars@ and @Party.@ he present e4a+ple, 3 believe, ill&strates this sa+e point. "ro+ an arg&+ent rooted &lti+ately 03 #an state Bith so+e ass&ran#e2 in a si+ple personal vendetta betBeen tBo historians, one of Bho+ Bas alBays trying to o&tdo the other, Bho disdained hi+, there e+erged tBo #a+ps of partisans arrayed against one another, Bith a&4iliaries s#&rrying ba#k and forth betBeen the+. he arg&+ent betBeen Pas#& and Prodan +apped o&t a field of dis#&rsive possibility. Upon it, persons and instit&tions ro&nded &p folloBers and fortified positions, anne4ing the debate to their oBn proNe#ts. he positions represented, on the one hand, proto#hronis+ and a defense of tr&th as politi#al, and, on the other, E&ropeanis+ and a defense of tr&th as s#ientifi#. he &nderlying iss&e Bas, sho&ld the s#ientifi# a&thority of intelle#t&als be a&4iliary to politi#al stat&sK Ehere is the #enter of gravity in the field of for#es Bhose #oordinates are @#&lt&re@ and @politi#s@K he ansBers Bere, inevitably, #ast in the idio+ of national identity. HoB did this arg&+ent serve to #on#entrate reso&r#es f&rther &nder the #ontrol of the politi#al apparat&sK 3 believe this o##&rred in at least tBo i+portant Bays, the debate reinfor#ed #ertain ideologi#al pre+ises HD!EA-1 !E(DL A*' HE P!D'UC 3D* D" H31 D!C 691 &sef&l to poBer, and it afforded the politi#al #enter a display of poBer that proNe#ted an i+age of regi+e strength Bhile &nder+ining the per#eption of possible alternatives. 3n other Bords, 3 s&ggest that the stag%it= of the debate had signifi#ant effe#ts on its a&dien#e, <&ite independently of its spe#ifi# #ontent. 3 do not regard these o&t#o+es as the a#tors- #ons#io&s intention. !ather, 3 s&ggest that relations of poBer/ &nderstood in so+ething #loser to "o&#a&lt-s sense than to Eeber-s/ a#t +ost signifi#antly in Bays that ar# nonobvio&s and, for this very reason, ar# espe#ially i+portant to identify.

A f&nda+ental syste+i# #onse<&en#e of the @revol&tionary@ innovation, in +y vieB, Bas that it #onstit&ted, or b&ilt &p, politi#al poBer. o redefine the past is to display +astery in the present, Bhether the redefinition is a##epted is perhaps less i+portant than the fa#t of its having been paraded. Control has fle4ed its +&s#les, de+anded attention, anno&n#ed itself. 3ts vehi#le has been so+ething fa+iliar to all/a personage fro+ the past that nearly anyone Bith a fo&rth%grade ed&#ation has heard of9:/and noB so+ething is being done Bith hi+, he is being #hanged. Better said, as any ransylvanian peasant Bo&ld, @ hey are #hanging hi+.@ Dver the long r&n, this #hange Bo&ld enhan#e poBer by s&bNe#ting the opposed intelle#t&als to defeat, if the neB label Bere to sti#k. 3 a+ less interested in that possibility, hoBever, than in another, #on#erning the average !o+anian rather than the elite. Changing Horea Bo&ld be signifi#ant for poBer not thro&gh altering &ned&#ated (%Bat#hers- vieB of Hor#a-s a#hieve+ent b&t in a +ore s&btle Bay, involving the effe#ts of a li+ited set of te#hni<&es on a fairly narroB a&dien#e, the in#l&sion of villagers in the spe#ta#les and in the parade of a#ade+i#s at the #onferen#e des#ribed above.9; he afternoon visits of learned @gentle+en@ fro+ aro&nd the #o&ntry, +aking spee#hes abo&t Hor#a-s revol&tion to lo#al gro&ps of peasants and +iners, #o&ld not fail to i+press &pon their village hosts the i+portan#e of the o##asion. he visits Bere i+pressive in +ore than one respe#t. "irst, they Bere &n+istakably fra+ed as politi#al%#ere+onial events, no villager Bho had ever Bat#hed television #o&ld fail to realiIe that the for+ of o&r re#eption Bas identi#al Bith that given the #o&ntry-s +ost i+portant people, espe#ially the C#a&ses#&s. he #hildren lining the BalkBays, the floBers handed to persons in the pro#ession, the spee#hes and appla&se, the +i4ing of these Bith the basi# rit&als of village hospitality 0brandy and #akes2, all this together Bith the aBe in Bhi#h villagers hold people of higher learning, the Bhole #onfig&ration +ade for a profo&ndly +arked display of poBer and knoBledge, 696 HD!EA-1 !E(DL A*' HE P!D'UC 3D* D" H31 D!C bro&ght into the s#hoolho&s#s and village halls of si+ple folk. he +anner of the display left no do&bt as to Bho Bas i+portant and Bho Bas there +erely to serve. Eithin this fra+e, and se#ond, the #ere+onies #o++&ni#ated to these folk the signifi#an#e of their history, a history i+portant eno&gh to bring a gro&p of disting&ished s#ientists fro+ all over the #o&ntry into their villages. he +essage Bas #o++&ni#ated in the +ost vis#eral Bay, by bringing people-s bodies into the for&+s in Bhi#h the +essage Bas being delivered in live p&bli# events 0rather than in the +ore personal and +ediated spa#e before the television, at ho+e2. 1o+e of these bodies/the #hildren-s/did not N&st sp##tat# b&t in fa#t re#reated Hor#a-s life and deeds, in the 0+&#h rehearsed2 poe+s and skits they ena#ted for the visiting s#holars. he #o++e+orative festivities engraved into people-s ne&rons both the poBer of the state that s&bNe#ted the+ and the histori#al notion of identity that Bas the o##asion for it. A third vital ele+ent of the festivities Bas that they shoBed the state-s #ontrol over i+e, not only thro&gh displaying its poBer to #ontrol the past 0and therefore the present2 by parading a redefinition of history, b&t also thro&gh proving its #apa#ity to e4propriate the ti+e and effort of others. he o##asion Bas a +agnifi#ent display of the state-s ability to gather &p i+e fro+ living

persons and redistrib&te it to the dead. By +obiliIing the bodies of so +any #hildren and parents, Bho Baited for ho&rs in the #old, by #o+pelling people to pro#&re rationed flo&r and s&gar and to provide the ti+e and labor ne#essary for +aking the #akes, together Bith the ho&rs of drill i+plied by the i+pressive syn#hrony of the #hildren-s re#itations, by all this, people-s bodies Bere infor+ed of their s&bservien#e to a defining poBer. he #elebration <&ite literally #+%bodi#d history and s&bordination as aspe#ts of people-s daily e4is% ten#e. Eith all this, Hor#a and his #onne#tion to poBer, state, and *ation be#a+e lodged in these villagers and s#hool#hildr#n at a level +ore profo&nd than the one to&#hed by their television shoBs or +e+oriIed te4tbooks, he and all he i+plies Bere lodged in their very bones. 3n all these respe#ts, Hor#a-s #elebration both displayed and f&rther #onstit&ted poBer, by dra+atiIing s&bNe#tion. Hor#a Bas a godsend to !o+ania-s Beak state, he provided an e4#ellent prete4t for proNe#ting an i+age of strength, offering the pop&la#e a vis#eral e4perien#e of their s&bordination and b&ilding &p their belief in the regi+e-s poBer/ Bhi#h, of #o&rse, strengthened it in fa#t. hro&gh #o++e+orations like Hor#a-s, !o+anians grad&ally #a+e to believe they had no alt#r% HD!EA-1 !E(DL A*' HE P!D'UC 3D* D" H31 D!C 697 native his, by the definition offered in the introd&#tory #hapter, #onstit&tes a legiti+ating +o+ent. 3t Bas a +o+ent ironi#ally #onfir+ed by those very intelle#t&als Bho believed that they Bere opposing poBer and yet #ontrib&ted to legiti+ating it. heir #ontrib&tion Bas partly an effe#t of hoB the event Bas staged. "irst, the division betBeen stage and a&dien#e, betBeen 1avant 'ignitaries in pro#ession and h&+ble villagers i++obiliIed by Baiting, Bas a division defined in ter+s of relative a+o&nts of knoBledge, betBeen those fit to speak and others fit only to sp##tat#. 3t reinfor#ed the notion that a&thority Bas the preserve of e4perts, not of lay persons, Bhi#h e4#l&ded all b&t the ed&#ated fro+ a +eaningf&l politi#al role. 1e#ond, &ninfor+ed observers by no +eans realiIed that those &p on the platfor+ Bere arg&ing Bith ea#h otherL all they saB Bas the gap betBeen e4perts and the+selves. his bl&rred the p&bli# per#eption of distin#tions a+ong #ategories of e4pert/divisions Bithin the elite/ and red&#ed the #han#e of #ross#&tting allian#es fro+ the stage to the a&dien#e. 98 3t separated those Bho +ost possessed the +eans for organiIing to #hange the e4isting syste+ fro+ those Bho +ight be a #onstit&en#y for s&#h #hange. 3f s&bNe#tion is, in part, the &nder+ining of alternatives, then the pra#ti#es that #o++e+orated Horea deepened people-s e4perien#e of s&bNe#tion, to a&thorities @in the knoB.@ he si+ple staging of these events Bas b&t one of the Bays/an indire#t one/ in Bhi#h all parti#ipants, regardless of their position, Bere #onstit&ting a&thority for the regi+e. All of Horea-s partisans, revol&tionary or not, Bere lo#ked in a single endeavor despite their disagree+ents, giving greater for#e to the pre+ise of e4pertise.knoBledge and to tBo other f&nda+ental pre+ises of !o+ania-s politi#al ideology, the pre+ises of the i+portan#e of history and the *ation. 3t Bas pre#isely + debating abo&t Horea that @&pris#rs@ and @revol&tionaries@ #o+bined to #reate ideologi#al perfor+an#es by Bhi#h the !o+anian pop&lation be#a+e f&rther s&bNe#ted to those @in the knoB,@ as Bell as to perpet&ate !o+anians- histori#al and national #ons#io&sness/#or%

nerstones of both the !o+anian state and all others in Eastern PXirop#. he pre+ise of the i+portan#e of history Bas, of #o&rse, the terrain on Bhi#h the entire debate took pla#e. By the very fa#t of debating, all sides a#knoBledged that the past Bas a vital #on#ern. 1in#e none of these #learly i+portant people Bas saying @1o BhatK@ to any of the histori#al <&estions, inno#ent observers #o&ld only #on#l&de that these <&estions Bere #r&#ial. 1i+ilarly Bith the *ation, by proposing different #on#ep% 699 )D!EA-1 !E(DL A*' HE P!D'UC 3D* D" H31 D!C dons of national identity and the national str&ggle, the antagonists reinfor#ed the long%held notion, basi# to p&bli# and s#holarly dis#o&rse for tBo #ent&ries, that !o+anians- national identity and its politi#al defense are of f&nda+ental signifi#an#e. o arg&e that Horea Bas or Bas not str&ggling, for the *ation s&ppressed asking Bhether the national str&ggle Bas Borth all this f&ss, the f&ss itself said that it +&st be. !egardless of Bhether one Bas saying @!o+ania first@ or @!o+ania Bith E&rope,@ then, one Bas insisting that the <&estion of national identity re+ain on the agenda. hat these tBo ideologi#al pre+ises 0*ation and past2 Bere being reprod&#ed see+s #lear eno&gh. he pre+ise abo&t knoBledge, hoBever, Barrants f&rther #o++ent. 3n dis#&ssing the i+pli#ations of the vario&s vieBs on Horea, 3 pointed to the @&prising@ gro&p-s defense of the notions of tr&th and s#ien#eL yet it Bas not only they Bho had s&#h #on#erns. 3ndeed, the arg&+ent betBeen &prisers and revol&tionaries Bas i+portant in part be#a&se betBeen the+, the disp&tants gave added ideologi#al for#e to the notion of @tr&th@/ Bhi#h served, of #o&rse, both the pre+ises of =ar4is+%1, #ninis+ and the position of the intelle#t&als Bho g&ard tr&th-s portals. Unlike literat&re or philosophy, historiography is a +aNor site for #onstr&#ting notions abo&t tr&th, sin#e =ar4is+ #lai+s history as a s#ien#e 0a #lai+ so e+poBering for !o+a% nian historians that 3 never heard one disp&te it, &nlike their #olleag&es in the Eest2. 1o#ialis+-s historians do not Baste their ti+e Bith +ere histori#al interpretations, they head straight for the #ha+bers of tr&e knoBledge. he defense of tr&th ran thro&gh the spee#hes of both sets of parti#ipants in the p&bli# debate on Horea, as +y s&++ary above +ade #lear. Professor Pas#&, for e4a+ple, affir+ed #learly that his patrioti# version of Hor#a-s revolt Bas in no Bay in#o+patible Bith the histori#al tr&th, an opinion Bith Bhi#h his editor #on#&rred. he #on#ern Bith tr&th Bas even +ore evident in later Britings by so+e of these sa+e people, parti#&larly in the Bake of H&ngary-s History of ransylvania. hat Bork eli#ited fro+ Pas#& and another historian a book #alled he 'angero&s Fa+e of "alsifying History. 3ts vario&s papers Bere entitled @=isrepresenting and "alsifying History,@ @ he Past =&st Be !evealed,@ @3n#ontestable r&ths and Contestations of the r&th,@ @!eadN&sting History or !eadN&sting "rontiersK,@ @Eho Benefits by 'istorting Histori#al r&th,@ @A "ir+ Position against the "alsifiers and '#nigrators of D&r *ational History,@ and so on 0Pas#& and 1tefan#s#& 198;2. Dne reads in these papers, as Bell as thro&gho&t the pop&lar press and other HD!EA-1 !E(DL A*' HE P!D'UC 3D* D" H31 D!C 69$ professional Britings, espe#ially by Party%based historians 0e.g., 3. Cea&ses#& et al., 198$L Popes#&%P&R&ri 19872, a virt&al obsession Bith the ideas of tr&th and falsehood. e4ts anno&n#e as their ai+, for e4a+ple, @serving histori#al

tr&th@ and giving a @tr&e i+age@ of @Bhat really happened@ 01. Cea&ses#& #t al. 198$, vii, 42. History is defended as the @s#ien#e of tr&th,@ in Bhi#h @the tr&th Bill alBays o&t@ 0Pas#& and 1tefanes#& 198;, ;72. @ r&e s#ien#e,@ it is #lai+ed, Bill #o+bat the errors propagated by those Bho fail to do an obNe#tive analysis of so#ial realities 0Popes#&%P&f&ri 1987, 912. 3n so+e te4ts this interest slides into an asso#iation of !o+ania Bith tr&th and foreigners Bith falsehood. "or e4a+ple, tBo historians atta#k a #olleag&e as folloBs, addressing their <&estion to those overseeing the No&rnal in Bhi#h he p&blished, HoB Bas it possible that nobody realiIed die fa#t that W GS is knoBn in die !o% +anian histori#al front as an ele+ent of dis#ord Bho falsifies o&r national his% tory, pro+oting non%s#ientifi# dieses Bhi#h #an fre<&ently be fo&nd in the Borks of foreign historians #on#erned Bith slandering the history of die !o+a% nian people . . . K 0in Pas#& and Qtefanes#& 198;, 66;2. Hie Cea&ses#& Brites darkly of vieBs asserted @Bitho&t any fo&ndation UbyV #ertain foreign historians led by interests e4ternal to s#ien#e and the obNe#tive tr&th@ 03. Cea&ses#& 1989, 1$2. Another historian &rges his #olleag&es to #o+bat @falsifi#ations of histori#al tr&th, +anifestations of #os+opolitanis+ and national nihilis+@ 01. 1tefan#s#& 19;8, 7;2,99 and yet another obNe#ts to the denat&red theories and interpretations thro&gh Bhi#h do+inant poBers propose that their da+aging r&le Bas a#t&ally progressive 0Pop#s#&%P&t&ri 1987, 912. Altho&gh it is #lear that +ost of these #o++ents Bere addressed to @falsifiers@ and @d#nigrators@ in neighboring H&ngary 0or the 1oviet Union, b&t this Bas less often i+plied o&tright2, reading a n&+ber of s&#h te4ts gives an overall i+pression of !o+ania as an island of p&re tr&th s&rro&nded by a sea of poll&ting foreign #al&+nies. 3t is the task of historians to propagate the tr&th, to bring light to the Borld-s ignorant and +isled. hose in another #a+p, the Prodans and others of !o+anian historiography Bho tho&ght of the+selves as opposing the intr&sion of poBer into their field, represented tr&th and its prote#tion differently, their i+age Bas not of !o+ania s&rro&nded by foreign poll&tions of the tr&th b&t of #onta+inations of tr&th internal to the #o&ntry. his is not to s&ggest that s&#h s#holars saB no falsehoods propagated fro+ abroad abo&t the !o+anian past b&t only to e+% 69: HD!EA-1 !E(DL A*' HE P!D'UC 3D* D" H31 D!C phasiIe their alar+ at the poll&tion of s#ientifi# a&thority by politi#al intentions. r&th, says =i#h#l Ho&#a&lt, is a syste+ of pro#ed&res for prod&#ing, reg&lating, and #ir#&lating state+entsL it is linked Bith the poBer that s&stains it and has poBer%effe#ts that e4tend it. 3n the str&ggle to define and #ontrol @tr&th@ in !o+anian historiography Be se# a #lash betBeen different proposed syste+s for prod&#ing and #ir#&lating state+ents. Dne of these syste+s Bas heavily asso#iated Bith r&le by the Co++&nist party and e4pressed grave do&bts abo&t the vera#ity of state+ents #o+ing fro+ beyond !o+ania-s borders. 3t #alls to +ind SoBitt-s i+age, introd&#ed in #hapter 7, of the pristine @#astle regi+e@ that #on#eives of itself as s&rro&nded by a poll&ting environ+ent. Proponents of this approa#h piled &p s#ien#e and tr&ths abo&t the *ation in the servi#e of their #astle regi+e-s representation of itself to the Borld. he se#ond syste+, asso#iated Bith Prodan and his like, +ade its appeal to standards of #o+peten#e and professional integrity as these ar#

defined in the Eest. Poll&tion, for it, #a+e fro+ the #onta+inating effe#ts of politi#s &pon the p&rity of s#ien#e. Both gro&ps &sed ideas abo&t tr&th to defend their #orner of the intelle#t&al terrain, one gro&p defining its #orner by pro4i+ity to politi#s and the other by distan#e fro+ it 0se# fig. 92. =e+bers of ea#h gro&p roped off their #orner fro+ that of their #olleag&es by #lai+ing the right to define @tr&th@ by their oBn #riteria. hese i+ages of poll&tion and p&rity +ake it #lear that beyond si+ply versions of the tr&th, Bhat Bas at stake Bas also +orality, s#ientifi# responsibility as a kind of #r&sade. his applies to historians on all sides of any disp&te. 1o+e de#ried @+ethods alien to the spirit of s#ien#e and the ethi#s of resear#h@ 0Pas#& and 1tefan#s#& 198;, ::, e+phasis added2. 3n a letter that soli#ited historians- aid in prod&#ing neB books abo&t Bessarabia, the a&thor appealed to @a na+e and a #ons#ien#e@ Dthers invoked a @spirit of s#ientifi# responsibility toBard the peasant +asses Bho sa#rifi#ed the+selves tBo h&ndred years ago@ 0as +entioned earlier in this #hapter2. Ad+irers of !o+ania-s ne4t%+ost intransigent historian after Prodan, Al. >&b oflasi, often referred to hi+ as a @high priest@ of historiography. he e+phasis on +oral s&periority as integral to #&lt&ral and s#ientifi# a&thority Bas shared by all pretenders to intelle#t&al stat&s, even those #lose to the politi#al a4is. 3t rests in part on East E&ropean intelle#t&als- histori#al sense of @+ission,@ and it appears to have served as a basi# entry <&alifi#ation for o##&pan#y of any #orner of the @intelle#t&al HD!EA-1 !E(DL A*' HE 1-!D'UC 3D* D" H31 D!C 69; sna#e @ hro&gh their passionate defense not only of tr&th b&t of its +orality historians shoBed that b&ilding s#ientifi# a&thority entailed affe#tive invest+ent, rather than the #&ltivation of distan#e and disinterest generally asso#iated Bith the defense of !eason. he sense of +oral righteo&sness abo&t tr&th gave arg&+ents in historiography the +essiani# <&ality that arg&+ents in literat&re dreB fro+ notions of val&e 0literary, aestheti#, so#ial, et#.2. 3 have been arg&ing in this se#tion that s#holars and Party offi#ials parti#ipated Nointly in the b&siness of #reating, strengthening, and &tiliIing #&lt&ral sy+bols that have ideologi#al for#e. 3t Bas not the spe#ifi# #ontent of their state+ents b&t the #onstit&tion of the dis#o&rse as a Bhole that +ade it ideologi#al, by not +aking e4pli#it the pre+ises on Bhi#h a debate Bas o##&rring, parti#ipants reinfor#ed those pre+ises as gro&nds for disp&tes and #lai+s. hro&gh their invo#ation alone/even if in arg&+ent/notions s&#h as knoBledge. *ation, and history, so #r&#ial in the !o+anian #onte4t, a#<&ired and gained for#e in the so#ial pra#ti#es of this so#iety, sin#e none of the+ Bas dis+issed as a basis for #ontention. Be#a&se both sides to the arg&+ent a##epted that it Bas abo&t knoBledge, the *ation, and the past, no one <&estioned Bhether these things o&ght to have para+o&nt signifi#an#e. 3t is thro&gh s&#h &nBitting s&ppressions that ideology is #onstit&ted, and, Bith it, #ertain gro&nds for legiti+a#y, thro&gh s&ppressing the <&estions that Bo&ld bring alternative possibilities to the fore. 3 have also been s&ggesting that altho&gh Be &s&ally think of @ideology@ as residing in the #ontent of a +essage, +ost of the ideologi#al #onse<&en#es in Hor#a-s #elebration res&lted, rather, fro+ the pra#ti#es that i+ple+ented it. Hor#a Bas passed thro&gh spe#ifi# pra#ti#es, Bhi#h o##&rred in p&bli# #onte4ts a#ross a divide betBeen speakers and hearers. "ro+ this staging, the p&bli#

&nderstood that so+ething signifi#ant Bas being said, even if they did not grasp all its i+pli#ations, and that poBer Bas being e4hibited. hese tBo things /the for+ of the dis#o&rse 0the debate2 itself, and the pra#ti#es thro&gh Bhi#h it Bas +ade p&bli#/shoB hoB historiography helped to serve the #enter-s legiti+a#y in Bays not &s&ally re+arked &pon. 3 Bo&ld not Bant to #on#l&de, hoBever, that opposition had only syste+% enhan#ing effe#ts. 3f nothing +ore, the reprod&#tion of ideologi#al pre+ises s&#h as *ation, past, and s#ien#e +ade those available not only for the regi+e b&t also for &se against it, by persons Bho +ight defend the *ation against its #orr&pt#rs in the s#at of poBer 0an arg&+ent Bith +&#h histori#al pre#edent2. At the end of the ne4t se#% 698 HD!EA-1 !E(DL A*' HE P!D'UC 3D* D" H31 D!C tion 3 ret&rn to this <&estion, asking Bhat other #onse<&en#es for poBer lay in historians- atte+pts to resist it.

.istoriograph& in a )art& Mode

3 have s&ggested above so+e i+portant Bays in Bhi#h the debate abo&t Hor#a #reated or reprod&#ed sy+boli# reso&r#es that #o&ld be &sef&lly in#orporated by the apparat&s of poBer. 3n this final se#tion 3 +ove beyond the spe#ifi#s of die debate over Horea to #onsider briefly a feB ele+ents of historiography as a property of the !o+anian politi#al apparat&s. Ehat dire#tion +ight history% Briting have taken, had the syste+-s #entraliIing tenden#ies been alloBed to play the+selves o&tK Dne i+portant aspe#t of the history to Bhi#h the politi#al apparat&s aspired Bas the neB s&bNe#t being #onstr&#ted, the entire !o+anian people. Class str&ggle Bas grad&ally fading o&t, along Bith the separation betBeen the Party and !o+anians- other history. Peasants Bere be#o+ing a revol&tionary #lass, their @vang&ard@ provided by self%+ade r&ral intelle#t&als like Hor#a. Ehenever a past !o+anian see+ed to have done so+ething #ontrary to the national interest, it Bas #lai+ed that either he had no #hoi#e, or he Bas serving a longer%ter+ national interestL or he Bas +ade o&t to be an alien of so+e sort Bho Bas not even really in @the people.@ "or e4a+ple, so+e historians Bere +aintaining that fas#is+ in !o+ania Bas a +arginal pheno+enon &ntil the as#ent of the !ei#h i+posed it on !o+anians, Bho Bere #ither poBerless to resist or Bere @aping foreign Bays@ &ns&ited to the national #hara#ter 03. Cea&ses#& #t al., 198$, 16L see also C. 1or#s#& 19862. 3n short, !o+anians Bho Bere not vi#ti+s Bere traitors, Bhi#h is to say not really !o+anians. As the history of the people Bas stret#hed ba#k ever +ore distantly into the +ists of ti+e, it Bas ever #learer that the @people@ i+portant to !o+ania Bere the ethni# !o+anians, not the H&ngarian, Fer+an, or Fypsy +inorities Bho entered the area after the ninth #ent&ry. As Bith proto#hronis+, then, Be se# the #reation of a history that Bo&ld e4pel aliens fro+ the #o++&nity of the val&ed. his kind of history aptly fits not only an e#ono+y of shortage 0se# dis#&ssions in #hapters 6 and $2 b&t also L#fort-s definition of a totalitarian ideology@ 0Lefort 198:, 689%68:2L it represented the Beak state of C#a&ses#&-s !o+ania as the poBerf&l, &nitary e+bodi+ent of @the entire people.@

HD!EA-1 !E(DL A*' HE P!D'UC 3D* D" H31 D!C 699 he kind of history being prod&#ed by people #lose to the Party shoBs e4#eptionally Bell hoB f&lly the national dis#o&rse had s&perseded the #hara#teristi# e+phases of =ar4is+. 1e#ond, the neB history rested on a very novel kind of ti+e, being neBlv defined. 3 observed above that in Hor#a-s #elebration, people e4perien#ed an appropriation of their ti+e, seiIed and p&t to other &ses by an e4ternal for#e. B&t the re#asting of ti+e Bent Bell beyond this, and historiography Bas the sphere par e4#ellen#e in Bhi#h it took pla#e. hro&gh vario&s +eans ti+e Bas flattened, rendered +otionless/despite all the =ar4is+%inspired slogans abo&t progress and the forBard +ar#h of history. hese +eans in#l&ded d##ont#4t&aliIing events, an e4press denial of the prin#iple that events differ a##ording to the #onte4t in Bhi#h they o##&r. h&s, a notion like @revol&tion@ Bo&ld +ean the sa+e thing for an event in prehistory and one in the present, for the Party Bas ti+#l#ssly e+bedded in both. *eB dispositions to historians and p&blishing ho&ses prohibited the &se of any b&t !o+anian pla#e%na+es in a p&bli#ation, regardless of the ti+e period being dis#&ssedL $@ therefore, an#ient and +edieval historians Bere to &se totally ana#hronisti# labels for the pla#es abo&t Bhi#h they Brote/tanta+o&nt to #alling the Ione at the +o&th of the Poto+a# !iver @Eashington@ in a dis#&ssion of the year 7555 B.C. he e#ono+i# a&tar#hy Cea&ses#& advo#ated Bas retrospe#tively fo&nd to have been a goal of +any past leadersL the #entraliIed 'a#ian state of ;5 B.C. Bas the sa+e kind of state as in the ninth or tBentieth #ent&ries A.'. !o+anians had been !o+anians sin#e ti+e i++e+orial. 3li# C#a&ses#&-s book, for instan#e, held that the people had alBays been one and the sa+eL it Bas not transfor+ed ea#h ti+e a neB +igratory people 0!o+ans, 1lavs, =ongols2 entered the area, @U3Vt is Bell knoBn that the !o+anian people re+ained alBays the sa+e, #onsolidated, &nitary and ho+ogeneo&s in the hearth it had alBays o##&pied,@ at +ost borroBing a little of !o+an #iviliIation or a feB Bords fro+ the 1lavs 03. Cea&ses#& 1989, 1:2. A ti+e Bas being #onstr&#ted that Bas ti+eless, that did not pass, and in Bhi#h the Party Bas ever%i++anent. Ca+pean& e4presses this ad+irably, @Be#o+ing is repla#ed by &nending repetition. Evis#erated of its s&bstan#e, history itself be#o+es ate+poral. Perpet&al +ove+ent gives Bay to perpet&al i++obility. . . . WHVistory . . . loses the <&ality of d&ration@ 0198:, 662. his #&rio&sly flat ti+e Bas teleologi#al, b&t in a +anner different fro+ the progressive teleology of =ar4is+, s&bstit&ted for this Bas a teleology of #ontin&ity and i++anen#e, the Party held in ti+e-s Bo+b fro+ the first +o+ent. he #o+bination of this 6$5 HD!EA-1 !E(DL A*' HE P!D'UC 3D* D" H31 D!C teleology Bith the loss of the d&rativ# #le+ent in ti+e Bas Bonderf&lly #apt&red in a !o+anian Noke, @Ehat do Be #elebrate on =ay 8, 1861 K Dne h&ndred years &ntil the fo&nding of the !o+anian Co++&nist Party.@ $1 3t Bas also a ti+e obedient to ad+inistrative fiat. his e+erges #learly fro+ the de#ision of the Party-s Central Co++ittee to fi4 the date &pon Bhi#h )ing B&r#bista had for+ed the first 'a#ian state on the soil of Bhat is noB !o+ania 0Feorg#s#& 1981, :$2. A proble+ that ar#h#ologists and historians had been &nable to resolve thro&gh de#ades of resear#h Bas th&s settled by the stroke

ofCea&s#s#&-s pen. he ti+e being #reated, then, Bas a ti+e responsive to the Party-s Bill, a ti+e of Bhi#h the Party Bas +aster. 3t Bas a ti+e very different fro+ the @ho+ogeneo&s e+pty ti+e@ that And#rson sees as #hara#teristi# of the nations #onstr&#ted by #apitalis+, better rese+bling the ti+e proper to pre#apitalist sa#red and i+perial Borlds 01987, 68/952. he sa+e point appears differently in *i#olae C#a&ses#&-s he Usi#V History of !o+ania 0C#a&ses#& 1987e2, a #olle#tion of te4ts fro+ spee#hes in Bhi#h he +entioned histori#al events. he book is organiIed in five se#tions, the first #ontaining observations abo&t the ne#essary relation of historiography to politi#s and the re+aining fo&r #overing Anti<&ity and the =iddle Ages, the fo&rteenth to nineteenth #ent&ries, 1861%1918, and 1919%1998. Cross#&tting this rit&al boB in the dire#tion of real ti+e is the organiIation of te4ts Bithin ea#h se#tion, they ar# stri#tly in the #hronologi#al order of their en&n#iation as spee#hes. hat is, an event of 1755 A.'. +entioned in a spee#h fro+ 19:8 Bill pre#ede an event of 7$5 B.C. +entioned in a spee#h of 19:9. Ehat better eviden#e of the Party-s desire for +astery over ti+e, its #apa#ity to redefine the entire di+ension of te+porality in h&+an affairsK And rightly so, ti+e, like lang&age, is a+ong the &lti+ate +eans of prod&#tion in so#ial life. he definition of ti+e #an affe#t, for instan#e, s&#h ti+e%bo&nd so#ial realities as labor-s prod&#tivity and s&rpl&s val&e. he appropriation of hoB history is prod&#ed appears in other feat&res of C#a&s#s#&-s History as Bell. he vol&+e Bas p&t together by the dire#tor of the 3nstit&te for Party History, Bhose prefa#e states that the book is intended to g&ide professional historians, bri++ing as it is Bith insights and theoreti#al for+&lations that Bill enhan#e their Bork on all the proble+s of !o+anian history. C#a&ses#& is presented as having restored to !o+anians their heroi# an#estors and glorio&s past, Bhose tr&e signifi#an#e he has revealed. hro&gh hi+ @Be have be#o+e able to knoB o&r parents, o&r for#bears, to be#o+e o&rselves@ 0Pop#s#&%P&t&ri 1987, 82, that is, Bitho&t the Party-s knoBledge of the HD!EA-1 !E(DL A*' HE P!D'UC 3D* D" H31 D!C 6$1 past Be Bo&ld be ignorant, Bitho&t the "irst "ather Be Bo&ld have no a##ess to o&r genealogy. C#a&ses#& &rges &s to seek o&r history at ho+e 0ibid., 92, that is, not to go looking for !o+anians in relation to E&rope or elseBhere, as so+e historians do. he Bork is e4pli#itly presented as a +eans of s&bse<&ent histori#al prod&#tion, C#a&s#s#&-s pre#io&s theoreti#al and +#thodologi#al insights provide fir+ gro&nd for prod&#ing +on&+ental treatises to synthesiIe !o+anian history and for properly &nderstanding the raB +aterial provided by historians- resear#h 0p. 9;2. he vol&+e-s #on#l&ding s#ientifi# apparat&s, it is said 0p. $52, ai+s to g&ide those Bishing f&rther knoBledge of !o+anians+&lti+illenary history. he bibliography of this $79%page te4t is 15 pages long and lists only one a&thor, *i#olae C#a&ses#&, the a&thority, the standard of histori#al #o+peten#e. his, then, is the &lti+ate in historiography in a Party +ode. 1o+e of its #reators Bere apparat#hiks, like Popes#&%P&X&ri 0above2, b&t others Bere +ore than this, professional historians, people like 1tefan Pas#&, Bhose #olleag&es on#e regarded his Bork as of high <&ality by professional standards and Bhose Britings t&rned to #reating revol&tions for the apparat&s. Pas#& Bas not the only professional historian to involve hi+self in debates like this, taking

a side that had #lear i+pli#ations for poBer. A+ong others Bho did so Bere +any deeply #onvin#ed that their for+ of professional pra#ti#e Bas a patrioti# d&ty and a servi#e to their *ation. 1o+e of the+ Bere, s&rely, @opport&nists@ 0N&st as so+e of their +ore ti+id opponents Bere @#oBards@/no side here held the +oral high gro&nd2, b&t so+e Bere also passionately dedi#ated to Bhat they saB as the +ost i+portant val&es, a shoring%&p of !o+anians- self% #onfiden#e, for e4a+ple, or an opposition to per#eived denigration fro+ abroad. hese people Bere atta#hed to instit&tions Bhose #a&se they f&rthered by s#he+ing to o&tdo rival instit&tions, less s&pportive of the @right@ val&es for the *ation, and to deprive those of the reso&r#es for history%Briting. "ro+ their #o+petition pro#eeded the #entraliIation of #ontrol. Ehat Bas the attit&de of Party%+ode historiography to those historians Bho resisted its blandish+entsK/to the Prodans and >&bs and others Bho p&rs&ed their oBn agendas, setting Bhat they defined as a standard of both +orality and s#ientifi# a&thorityK Eere these fo#i of -independent prod&#tion@ disabledK Historians Bho a#hieved a #ertain degree of e+inen#e Bere diffi#&lt to disable, in part for the very reason that they prod&#ed things of val&e to @!o+ania.@ ravel visas +ight be denied, as a gentle hintL +an&s#ripts +ight be stalled inter+inably, b&t 6$6 )D!EA-1 !E(DL A*' HE P!D'UC 3D* D" H31 D!C +ost Bo&ld at length se# print, &nlike the #ol&+ns of a literary #riti# or the vol&+es of a poet Bho offended the a&thorities. $6 =ore #o++on than silen#ing Bo&ld be persistent efforts to #oopt these persons, Bith their a##&+&lations of +oral and professional standing, into the proNe#ts of the #enter. Proto#hronists, for e4a+ple, repeatedly approa#hed the e+inent and o&tspokenly anti#entrist Prodan and >&b Bith proposals that Bo&ld #reate the appearan#e of their adhesion to proto#hronis+/s&#h as aBarding the+ priIes for their Bork and soli#iting their aid for proto#hronist initiatives. Altho&gh this atte+pt at #ooptation did not #o+e fro+ the Party #enter proper, one #an point to +any others that did, s&#h as Bell%knoBn historian 'in& Fi&r#s#&-s report that high offi#ials had #oer#ed his signat&re for an anti%H&ngarian diatribe in 1989, th&s asso#iating his #haris+ati# na+e Bith their designs.$7 Ehat, if any, reso&r#es Bere available to those historians Bho nonetheless Bished to resist #ooptationK Besides the +oral standing and s#ientifi# a&thority that +ade the+ targets of it in the first pla#e, not +&#h. he politi#al #enter kneB hoB to find the #hinks in a s#holar-s ar+or that Bo&ld +ake hi+ #onsider s&#h an offer serio&sly/his da&ghter-s entry into &niversity, his Bife-s keeping her present Nob, his invitation to spend a feB +onths in "ran#e. "ro+ this point of vieB, Bhat enabled A#ade+i#ian Prodan to insist on his professional a&ton% o+y Bas pre#isely his la#k of s&#h en#&+bran#es 0no #hildren, hi+self and his Bife retired, +ini+al a+bitions for travel2. he only thing that +ight give leverage to this sort of historian and those Bho asso#iated their na+e Bith his Bas independent re#ognition of his s#ientifi# rep&tation, +ost espe#ially, re#ognition fro+ the Eest. 3ntelle#t&als re#ogniIed and s&pported in the Eest had a bit +ore freedo+ of +an#&v#r than others, be#a&se the a&thorities Bere +ore rel&#tant to silen#e the+. h&s, A#ade+i#ian Prodan-s ele#tion to honorary +e+bership in the A+eri#an Histori#al Asso#iation in 198: Bas greeted Bith N&bilation parti#&larly by those historians Bho tho&ght of the+selves as seeking to e+&late his e4a+ple.$9

HoB, given +y #on#l&sions in the previo&s se#tion, #o&ld their opposition to the #enter have any effi#a#yK 3 arg&ed there that @&pris#rs@ Bho saB their debate Bith @revol&tionaries@ as opposing the in#&rsion of poBer into historiography nonetheless helped to reprod&#e the national ideology and the enthrone+ent of knoBledge, both of Bhi#h potentially served the politi#al apparat&s by providing it Bith legiti+ating HD!EA-1 !E(DL A*' HE P!D'UC 3D* D" H31 D!C 6$7 +o+ents. HoB, then, #o&ld those historians Bho Bished to keep alive a different definition for their dis#ipline do so Bitho&t in so+e Bay serving poBer, hoBsoever inadv#rt#ntlyK o Bhat e4tent Bas anything a##o+plished by those historians Bho saB their life-s Bork as to perpet&ate val&es and definitions of the past different fro+ those the Party privileged and a+plifiedK Besides reinfor#ing ideologies abo&t the *ation and knoBledge, Bhi#h +ight help to legiti+ate other regi+es than Cea&ses#&-s, 3 believe they did. heir effe#tiveness Bas less in the #ontent of their arg&+ents than in their professional pra#ti#es. Even tho&gh to defend knoBledge and e4pertise +ight strengthen those gro&nds for the Party-s legiti+ation, to insist on other standards for professional #o+peten#e ne#essarily pl&raliI#d the environ+ent, th&s defying the atte+pted totaliIation of all prod&#tive +eans. o insist, as did Prodan, that history is Britten by #ons&lting do#&+ents year after year, de#ade after de#ade, and by spe#ialiIing in a period and learning its idio+s, its rhyth+s, its e##entri#ities, Bas to offer a professional +odel different fro+ one that footnoted only se#ondary so&r#es and spee#hes of Cea&s#s#& or that @spe#ialiIed@ in the entire r&n of !o+anian history fro+ the Pal#olithi# to +odern ti+es. A history book that &pheld the sp##ifi#iti#s of the #onte4ts it des#ribed, or that ref&sed to see a +odern state or a !o+anian people in 1$5 A.32., Bas a history book diffi#&lt to appropriate Bithin the ti+e%flattening, de#onte4t&aliIing definitions of historiography in a Party +ode. A historian Bho ref&sed to ansBer the atte+pted re#astings of his arg&+ent, so as not to be draBn into the ter+s set by his opponent, like those +arginaliIed a#ade+i#s Bho ref&sed to Noin the Party even in e4#hange for a &niversity post, Bere de+onstrating for all to se# that there Bas not N&st one option for prod&#ing history, even tho&gh the alternatives Bere perilo&s and disheartening. 3t is for this reason that Prodan be#a+e, in his oBn lifeti+e, a sy+bol, and a sy+bol far less a+big&o&s in his properties than the peasant rebel Bho Bas his hero.$$ "or those historians Bho hoped to +aintain a spa#e Bithin the intelle#t&al terrain that did not re<&ire politi#al validation, he &n#<&ivo#ally represented the longevity and strength of dis#iplinary pra#ti#es antedating the present regi+e. !o+anian historians have spent over tBo #ent&ries arg&ing fier#ely and p&bli#ly abo&t the past, prod&#ing a body of dis#o&rse and professional pra#ti#es that a#hieved a #ertain a&tono+y. Earlier for+s of the+ #ontin&ed to live 6$9 )D!EA-1 !E(DL A*' HE P!D'UC 3D* D" H31 D!C and breathe in people like Prodan, Bho learned the+ in a previo&s era and trans+itted the+ by in#&l#ating nor+s of Bhat a resear#h dis#ipline sho&ld #onsist of. Like all a#ade+i# dis#iplines, historiography is a #olle#tion of pra#ti#es, very +aterial in their &nfolding and re#al#itrant to #hange. 1&#h pra#ti#es +ade intelle#t&al a#tivity Bithin a field of dis#iplinary endeavor not

N&st a Party%serving instr&+ent b&t an independent for#e in the Borld. 3ts traditions and their revivifi#ation +ade histori#al interpretations diffi#&lt for the #enter to #hange Bitho&t a str&ggle. hese pra#ti#es i+peded the #on#entration of reso&r#es and +eans of #&lt&ral prod&#tion in the politi#al apparat&s in a variety of Bays, b&t one parti#&lar e4a+ple Bill +ake the point. Ehen Cea&ses#& appealed to the @historiansfront@ in the +id%19;5s to prod&#e a neB ten%vol&+e synthesis of !o+anian history, he Bas appealing to a profession re#ently fortified by the rehabilitation of persons sidelined d&ring the 1talinist era. he dis#ipline Bas peopled then by a variety of pra#titioners, +ore and less +alleable, +ore and less a+bitio&s. B&t N&st as Bith the Eriters- Union in the sa+e period, the leaders of the profession tended to be @refor+ers@ and nonapparat#hik professionals installed in strong positions d&ring the late 19:5s and early 19;5s. hese people, entr&sted Bith prod&#ing the neB reatise of !o+anian History, b&sily set abo&t doing so a##ording to their idea of proper professional nor+s. By the ti+e the first vol&+e/the one that treated !o+anian origins/Bas ready, hoBever, da#o+ania had be#o+e the rage in B&#harest. 'ire#tors of instit&tes Bere instr&#ted to #hange their s&bordinates- #ontrib&tions to the reatise, refle#ting +ore 'a#ian and less !o+an infl&en#e. hose responsible for the first vol&+e ref&sed to do so. 3n #onse<&en#e, the typeset fonts for that vol&+e Bere +elted doBn and neither it nor any of the others/long sin#e #o+pleted in the draBers of their #o+pilers/appeared.$: he reason Bas partly professional intransigen#e and partly, it is r&+ored, the opposition of the a+bitio&s #enters spe#ialiIing in +ilitary historyL having not been Britten into the initial p&bli#ation plan, they pro#eeded to blo#k it hen#eforth. 3f this r&+or is tr&e, it shoBs instit&tional rivalries 0rather than #entral diktat2 disabling fo#i of prod&#tion that resist the #enter-s e+bra#e. And if it is not, Be are left Bith a great silen#e, defiantly prod&#ed by #ertain historians insisting on pl&ralisti# standards and pl&ral interpretations. As this e4a+ple +akes plain, Be +&st draB #on#l&sions abo&t the for#es that HD!EA-1 !E(DL A*' HE P!D'UC 3D* D" H31 D!C 6$$ prod&#ed #&lt&re in C#a&s#s#&-s !o+ania not N&st fro+ Bhat Bas Britten b&t also fro+ Bhat people ref&sed to say. his #hapter has shoBn, on the basis of an insignifi#ant arg&+ent abo&t a long%dead ransylvanian peasant, hoB debates that see+ed to be abo&t labels Bere also debates abo&t !o+anian identityL hoB Bhat looked like an opposition to val&es pro+oted by the #enter helped to strengthen so+e of the regi+e-s s&pportsL hoB #o+petition betBeen individ&als and instit&tions Bithin the fra+eBork of a b&r#a&#rati#%allo#ativ# syste+ tended to bring the prod&#tion of history f&rther Bithin the #ontrol of the politi#al #enterL and finally, hoB at the level of professional pra#ti#e, there Bas nevertheless a #ertain fri#tion against these #entraliIing tenden#ies. 3n the final #hapter, 3 des#ribe a #ase that s#ra+bled so+e of these o&t#o+es and that offered fri#tion against #entraliIing tenden#ies not only at the level of pra#ti#es b&t at that of e4pli#it #ontent, as Bell.

CHAP E! 1E(E* The "School" of Philoso her Constantin Noica 3 drea+ of a. s#hool in Bhi#h Bhat Bill be ta&ght is, <&ite frankly, nothing, Bhere people Bill live pea#ef&lly and +odestly, in a #orner of so+e toBn, and a feB yo&ng people Bill #o+e there to free the+selves of the tyranny of professors. . . . 'on-t yo& see that they too have so+ething to say, to affir+K And that Be do not alBays have anything to tell the+K Ee are +erely +ediators betBeen the+ and the+selves. . . . 1tates of spirit, that-s Bhat +&st be given to othersL not #ontents, not advi#e, not tea#hings. / Constantin *oi#a C-est &ne trahison de pa#tiser ave# le sie#le. %% S&lien Benda ara piere si filoIofii se piepti+a. 0 he #o&ntry is dying and the philosophers are fi4ing their hair.2 /!o+anian proverb 6$: '&ring the de#ade of the 1985s, !&+anian intelle#t&al life Bas +&#h enlivened by the p&bli#ation of tBo books, S&rnal&l de la @1CHDDL@ D" PH3LD1DPHE! CD*1 A* 3* *D3CA 6$; Paltinis 0So&rnal fro+ Paltinis2 and Epistolar _Letters2X one Britten and the other edited by Fabriel Lii#ean&, a philosopher in his +id%forties.- 3 #all the persons involved in these books and the events aro&nd the+ the @1#hool@ of Constantin *oi#a, Lii#ean&-s +entor and the e4pli#it or i+pli#it fo#&s of +&#h of the dis#&ssion. "or +any intelle#t&als, the tBo books Bere the event of the de#ade, despite the fa#t that the stri#tly philosophi#al iss&es raised Bere a##essible to al+ost no one. he books harvested a b&+per #rop of revieBs, #o++entary, den&n#iations, and other p&bli# noti#e, and they bro&ght to the s&rfa#e Bith nearly &npre#edented #larity a n&+ber of iss&es in the politi#s of #&lt&re. 3ndeed, despite their origin in a #o++&nity of philosophers and their arg&+ents for the pla#e of philosophy in !o+anian #&lt&re, 3 see their sig% nifi#an#e as lying #hiefly o&tside the do+ain of philosophy proper, in the sphere of #&lt&ral politi#s. 3t is fro+ this angle that 3 dis#&ss *oi#a-s @1#hool.@ 6 he people in *oi#a-s inner+ost #ir#le Bere a+ong the +ost +arginal, and their for+ of #&lt&ral prod&#tion 0+etaphysi#s2 the +ost ar#ane and generally i+penetrable, of any of the events, persons, or arg&+ents dis#&ssed in this book. Cet be#a&se these philosophers- arg&+ents interse#ted Bith literary #riti#is+ and Bith proto#hronis+, they a#hieved +&#h greater visibility than did the debate #overed in #hapter :, #on#erning the +&#h +ore #entral and a##essible do+ain of history. =y dis#&ssion of the+ in#l&des ever%Bidening #ir#les, first *oi#a hi+selfL then his #losest dis#iples and other persons Bith Bho+ they intera#ted intensely 03 refer to these as the @*oi#ans@ or @*oi#a 1#hool,@ even tho&gh several of the+ #learly stated their differen#e fro+ *oi#a and fro+ ea#h other on f&nda+ental points2L and finally a larger #ir#le of persons +ore or less sy+patheti# and +ore or less hostile to *oi#a and.or his #losest dis#iples.7 he *oi#a 1#hool for+s a fitting #on#l&sion to +y treat+ent of #&lt&ral politi#s in C#a&s#s#&-s !o+ania. Even +ore #learly than the pheno+ena dis#&ssed in

previo&s #hapters, *oi#a Bas dire#tly #ontin&o&s Bith the interBar arg&+ents on the national essen#e, for he Bas a #entral fig&re in the #&lt&ral battles of the 1975s, and 0Bith the posth&+o&s p&bli#ation of so+e Britings of his last years2 he p&rs&ed his Bork on the national essen#e even beyond his death, in 198;. Ee se# in the @*oi#a pheno+enon@ a n&+ber of iss&es treated in previo&s #hapters, as Bell as so+e additional ones that have not yet e+erged. he iss&es in#l&de the str&ggle betBeen proto#hronis+ and its opposition or betBeen indig#nists and B#sterniI#rs, divisions betBeen intel% 6$8 @1CHDDL@ D" 1-H3LD1DPHE! CD*1 A* 1* *D3CA le#t&als and the larger p&bli#, rival #lai+s to #&lt&ral representativen#ss in the na+e of national val&es, #o+petition a+ong vario&s dis#iplines to lay hold of #&lt&ral a&thority, and/albeit peripherally/#lai+s abo&t the pla#e of =ar4is+ Bithin legiti+ate #&lt&re 0th&s, abo&t variants of a =ar4ist tradition Bithin !o+anian #&lt&ral life2. he iss&e of #&lt&re-s relation to poBer is also #entral to this set of eventsL b&t to a degree not overtly en#o&ntered in other instan#es dis#&ssed in this book, so also is an opposition betBeen #entraliIation and pl&ralis+, an arg&+ent abo&t hoB to resist totaliIation in the prod&#tion of val&es and hoB to prote#t the+ against politi#al &s&rpation. his last iss&e #ross#&ts and bl&rs the relatively #lear de+ar#ations of allian#e and opposition that e+erged in previo&s #hapters, for *oi#a Bas an &n&s&ally #o+pli#ated #hara#ter. 3f #ertain fig&res in earlier #hapters had, fro+ the Bestern point of vieB, a fairly #onsistent relation to poBer, in the present #ase it Bas pre#isely the ethi#s of a relation to poBer that be#a+e tri#ky. *oi#a Bas by no +eans the intransigent hero of an opposition to totaliIing Party r&le that one +ight see in the +aNor antiproto#hronists or historian 'avid Prodan. 1i+ilarly, *oi#a had a +ore #o+ple4 relation to interBar #&lt&re than so+eone like Prodan, Bho Bas also prod&#ing in those years. Altho&gh Prodan spent the 1975s as a largely &nnoti#ed leftist b&ried in a provin#ial ar#hive, Bhen#e he Bas #atap&lted into a &niversity professorship after 199$, *oi#a 0together Bith =ir##a Eliad# and E+il Cioran92 for+ed the #enter of a gro&p of #os+opolitan B&#harest intelle#t&als in the orbit of right%Bing philosopher *a# lon#s#&, $ an asso#iation for Bhi#h he later paid dearly. *oi#a-s past and re#ent history +ade very a+big&o&s his relation to the Co++&nist party and the entire field it definedL this <&ality gave hi+ a spe#ial sy+boli# val&e. =&#h of the dis#&ssion to folloB is abo&t a #ontest a+ong different gro&ps to #apt&re *oi#a as a sy+bol, a #ontest that reveals +aNor <&estions abo&t philosophy, #&lt&ral prod&#tion, the role of national identity in it, and the relation ot #&lt&re to poBer. 3n brief, this #hapter offers the folloBing interpretation. Ehereas fa#tional rivalry in historiography, literat&re, and literary #riti#is+ tended to e+erge as <&estions abo&t Bhi#h fa#tion or instit&tion best represented !o+anian #&lt&ral or s#ientifi# val&es, in philosophy <&estions ofr#pres#ntativ#ness interse#ted Bith <&estions abo&t the very nat&re of the dis#ipline and its pla#e in #&lt&re and national life. his is be#a&se of all a#ade+i# dis#iplines, philosophy Bas the one earliest anne4ed by Co++&nist party r&le, Bhi#h instit&tionaliIed =ar4is+% @1CHDDL@ D" PH3LD1DPHE! CD*1 A* 1* *D3CA 6$9 Leninis+ and +aterialist philosophy and s&ppressed all other for+s of

philosophi#al tho&ght. he s&bse<&ent @#risis@ of =ar4ist legiti+ation in !o+ania partially liberated philosophy fro+ its servit&de to poBer, b&t it had then to re#onstit&te its f&llness and respe#tability. his #reated, 3 believe, an environ+ent in Bhi#h despite the #o+fortable do+inan#e of a #ertain gro&p of philosophers in the instit&tions of philosophy, +ere Bas perhaps +ore roo+ there than in other fields for +arginal tenden#ies to seek and re#eive a hearing. *oi#a-s folloBers give &s a revealing instan#e of hoB a#tivity at the +argins #o&ld draB attention to itself and potentially shift the dis#ipline-s #enter of gravity. 3n other Bords, this #hapter shoBs hoB a gro&p even +ore +arginaliIed than the early proto#hronists of #hapter $ gained visibility, by a very different strategy. 3nherent in their +arginality, hoBever, Bas a sense of &rgen#y that #a&sed *oi#a-s folloBers to e+phasiIe #&lt&re-s saving 0sot#riologi#al2 val&e, its #apa#ity to prevent !o+anians- e4tin#tion. his @saving@ e+phasis positioned the+ #lose to religion and, hen#e, at odds Bith poBer, as did the kind of #&lt&ral a##&+&lation they advo#ated, as Bell. Co+pared Bith the pra#ti#es and arg&+ents treated elseBhere in this book, those of the *oi#a 1#hool #a+e #losest to arti#&lating both the #onfrontation of #&lt&re Bith poBer and the possibility of an alternative vision/the fo&ndation of a diversified ideologi#al field and, thro&gh this, of transfor+ing so#iety fro+ Bithin. 3t is i+portant to e+phasiIe Bhat +y treat+ent of *oi#a is not. "irst, it is not a #o+prehensive dis#&ssion of !o+anian philosophy, Bhi#h #ontained +&#h greater diversity than 3 #an en#o+pass. =ore than #hapters $ and :, the +aterial of this #hapter des#ribes tenden#ies far fro+ the #enter of the dis#ipline it treats, even if Bhat it des#ribes Bas very +&#h the #enter of interest for a s&bstantial n&+ber of !o+anian intelle#t&als. 1e#ond, oBing to +y +ini+al knoBledge of philosophy, 3 +ake no pretense of e4pli#ating the parti#&lars of *oi#a-s Bork, Bhi#h 3 leave to others 0see, e.g., )arnoo&h 198;, 19952. =y s&++ary of his tho&ght rests on dis#&ssions Bith or p&blished treat+ents by !o+anian philosophers. Cet be#a&se *oi#a be#a+e a fig&re of sy+boli# i+portan#e Bell beyond the tiny Borld of philosophy, a fig&re liberally invoked by literati, No&rnalists. Party a#tivists, and others N&st as &n<&alified as 3 a+ to assess his #ontrib&tion, 3 feel N&stified in adding +y a+ate&r reading to theirs so as to e4plore the so#iology of his fa+e. *oi#a, like all sy+bols, had +ore than a &nivo#al spe#ialist @+eaning.@ 3t is defensible to ask hoB he Bas vario&sly &nderstood and +anip&lated, Bith ta#ti#s that so+eti+es in#l&ded Brapping hi+ in a prof#s% 6:5 @1CHDDL@ D" 1-H3LD1DPHE! CD*1 A* 3* *D3CA sional dis#o&rse i+penetrable to the &ninitiated, as different gro&ps tried to fi4 his signifi#an#e in Bays favorable to their oBn enterprise and ini+i#al to that of others.

!ho !as Constantin Noica4

hat *oi#a Bas an a+big&o&s #hara#ter #an be easily established Bith a feB opinions, C&n.stantin *oi#a lias an ana#hronisti# and pi#t&res<&e air, and like 'on J&i% 4ote, lie +akes &s both la&gh and #ry. Ee Bill never be able to de#ide it Bhat is #raIy is his +adness or o&r serio&sness 0A. atefanes#& 19892. Even a passing glan#e shoBs the rarity of a #&lt&ral prod&#t W like *&i#aS.... 3n

politi#al e#ono+y, rarity is not the prin#ipal #riterion for establishing the val&e of prod&#ts, altho&gh in #ertain spe#ial #ases s&#h as gold, dia+onds, and radioa#tive +etals, rarity do#s play a part. . . . his rarity #an be real or be +aintained by vario&s strategies of s&pply and de+and. . . . Dne +ight add that gold has been &sed both for Bedding bands and also for not%so%hon#st transa#tions. Ehat good is *oi#aK . . . Eitho&t +ali#e, 3 Bo&ld say that ... he is &sef&l for everything 0Anton#s#i 198;2. *oi#a ... is a her+it Bho Bants to bring order to the Borld and to #&lt&re, Bitho&t realiIing Bhat a dreadf&l sophis+ he has fallen into 01i+ion 19872. =any <&estions Bill be asked as to Bhether *oi#a Bas a believer. . . . And all sorts of things Bill be said, ea#h of the+ Bith so+e basis in fa#t. As tor +e, he asked +e a n&+ber of ti+es to b&ry hi+ in this her+itage. He #o&ld have asked for so+ething else, for he Bas not la#king in ideas nor indifferent to death. B&t here Bas Bhere he Banted to be. 1 have no f&rther #o++ent 0*oi#a-s friend ransylvanian ar#hbishop Antoni# Pla+adeala, at *oi#a-s f&neral2. *oi#a Bas not a religio&s +an 0*oi#a-s friend *. 1teinhardt, +onk2. *oi#a and his folloBers #onstit&te Bitho&t do&bt the +ost signifi#ant intelle#% t&al event of this de#adeL Bhat they are trying to do is of vital i+portan#e. *oi#a and his gro&p are not very signifi#ant, reallyL there are other far +ore i+portant books, s&#h as Wone proving !o+anian #ontin&ity in ransylvania W. 3t-s tr&e feBer people Bill read the+ d%ian Lii##an&-s, b&t they Bill last. *oi#a-s st&ff is N&st froth, for +ost people, it Bill have no i+pa#t. 0 Bo opinions over% heard at the 3nstit&te of History, lasi.2 *oi#a #ontrib&ted +&#h to #reating his oBn +ysti<&e and @+&lti%vo#ality@ in his lifeti+e. "or instan#e, @1CHDDL@ D" PH3LD1DPHE! CD*1 A* 3* *D3CA 6:1 3f anyone sho&ld interest hi+self in +y s#holarly a#tivity, 3 ask that he not take a##o&nt of the folloBing, 12 +y biography, Bhi#h has no #ontent, in good part fro+ +y oBn intention. ... 3 lived +y life in an idea, and in nothing else, in #ontrast to those Bho have so+ething else and therefore have #a&se to +o&rn. 3 a+ in Bhat 3 have p&blished 01988, 15, original e+phases2. he basi# o&tlines of this nonbiography in#l&de his birth in 1959 to a Bell% pla#ed landoBning fa+ilyL he re#eived his !. A. in philosophy in 1971, did advan#ed st&dies in "ran#e and Fer+any, and re#eived his do#torate in 1995, having already Bon a priIe for his first book 019792. His list of s&bse<&ent p&bli#ations is i++ense, in#l&ding at least tBenty%si4 books, +any of the+ translations or e4egeses of Plato, )ant, Hegel, and 'es#artes. He re#eived a spe#ial priIe fro+ the Eriters- Union 0of Bhi#h he Bas a +e+ber and fro+ Bhi#h he re#eived a genero&s pension2, as Bell as posth&+o&s aBard of A&stria-s Herd#r PriIe for signifi#ant #&lt&ral a#hieve+ents Bithin the Last blo#. Upon this spare s#affolding *oi#a h&ng a feB all&ring orna+ents. 3n 19;9 he settled hi+self at the top of a +o&ntain/a tr&ly rarefied at+osphere for philosophi#al spe#&lation. His abode lay near the border separating ransylvania fro+ !o+anians so&thern region, a Ione in Bhi#h tBo other +aNor and #ontroversial interBar philosophers also resided 0Cioran, Blaga2L hen#e, he pi#ked a lo#ation both +arginal and #entral Bithin !o+ania and Bithin philosophy. E4#ept for the hordes of visitors Bho invaded his pea#e in his latter years, he led an as#eti#, al+ost her+it%like e4isten#e in a single #hilly roo+,

f&rnished Bith rented obNe#ts, in a #abin that re+inds philosophi#al #ognos#enti of Heidegger-s. A #elebrated photo shoBs hi+ and Lii#ean& Balking &p a +o&ntain path, their ba#ks to the #a+era. His e4press reNe#tion of all b&t the +ost o##asional #onta#ts Bith B&#harest, Paris, and other #os+opolitan #enters dra+atiIed the +arginality that Bas both i+posed &pon and e+bra#ed by hi+. his +arginality Bas #r&#ial to the biography *oi#a denied having. Altho&gh his ref&sal of established positions antedated the #o++&nist regi+e 0he de#lined a post as &niversity le#t&rer in 1979, retreating to the +o&ntains to translate dete#tive stories2, the biography he Bo&ld s&ppress #ontained his brief period of adheren#e to the fas#ist Legion of the Ar#hangel =i#hael. his and his #lass origin +ade hi+ persona n&n g+ta. on#e the #o++&nists #a+e to poBer. hey pla#ed hi+ in for#ed do+i#ile for several years and then i+prisoned hi+ for @#o&nterrevol&%tionary@ a#tivities.: "or ten years after his release in 19:9 he held the only reg&lar post of his life, as resear#her at the Center for Logi#, 6:6 @1CHDDL@ D" PH3LD1DPHE! CD*1 A* 3* *D3CA @1CHDDL@ D" PH3LD1DPHE! CD*1 A* 3* *D3CA 6:7 Bhen#e he retired Bith a s+all pension. 3t Bas after this that he settled in a roo+ in the +o&ntaintop #abin at Paltinis and began in earnest to t&tor a feB dis#iples he had a#<&ired along the Bay. He never served as professor in a for+al senseL he translated this ne#essity into a virt&e, #lai+ing that being +arginal Bas the best g&arantee of &ndistra#ted p&rs&it of the 3dea. *oi#a-s ref&sal to speak openly abo&t the deter+inants of his +ar%ginality, to #larify the degree of his #o++it+ent to fas#is+ and perhaps his regrets, #ontrib&ted to his protean <&ality and to the a+bival#n## Bith Bhi#h a Bide variety of people regarded hi+. "or *oi#a, hoBever, this silen#e +ade possible an inversion of sy+boli# val&es, he t&rned his e4#l&sion into the sign of ele#tion by #&lt&ral destiny, his handi#aps into spirit&al <&alifi#ations, and his distan#e fro+ offi#ially pro+&lgated @d#&lt&re@ into a title to represent a for+ of #&lt&re that Bas deep and gen&ine 0Fh#orghi& 198$Y, ;:%;;2. his in#reased his appeal to yo&ng people disg&sted by the flatness of Bhat passed for #&lt&re as #reated and trans+itted in for+al instit&tions. o see Bhy Constantin *oi#a be#a+e so i+portant in #onte+porary !o+ania re<&ires a sket#h of his philosophi#al tho&ght, +ost espe#ially of that part of it Bhi#h dealt Bith !o+anian identity/Bhat 3 Bill refer to as his @!o+anian Britings@ 0see, e.g., his !ostireafilosofi#a ro+aneas#a, U!o+anian Eays of 1peaking Philosophi#ally^, 19;5, or his 1enti+ental ro+anes# alfiinfei U he !o+anian 1enti+ent of Being^, 19;82. =y s&++ary of *oi#a-s philosophy #o+es fro+ a #o+prehensive sket#h of it by Andrei =arga, ; Bho identifies *oi#a-s f&nda+ental goal as a #riti<&e of reason and +odern rationality and an atte+pt to redefine the+ aBay fro+ their s#ientifi#, positivist%t##hno#rati# senses toBard +eanings +ore s&ited to spirit&al #reation. Dn this reading, *oi#a Bas a #riti# of +odern so#iety Bhose progra+ for transfor+ing it Bas not a politi#al b&t a spirit&al revol&tion, and Bho #onse<&ently e4plored not the so#iopoliti#al b&t the philosophi#al #onditions of s&#h a #hange 0=arga 1988, 9$2. *oi#a-s #riti<&e of +odernity led in tBo dire#tions, =arga s&ggests. he first Bas a ree4a+ination of the sol&tions offered by earlier philosophers, parti#&larly Plato, in Bho+ he saB an e4e+plifi#ation of hoB to live so as to

pro+ote groBth and f&lfill+ent. 8 he se#ond Bas to #hallenge te#hno%s#ientifi# rationality by e4ploring alternative Bays of apprehending the Borld. Here his vehi#le Bas a detailed analysis ot traditional !o+anian for+s of tho&ght as e+bedded in ling&isti# &sages. he res&lt, *oi#a believed, Bas a +odel of the Borld very different fro+ the e4#essively +e#hanisti# and di#hoto+iIing Borld vieB of the +odern Eest. Dn this Bork rests *oi#a-s s&bse<&ent notoriety. *ot only did he &nlo#k a spe#ifi#ally !o+anian Borldvi#B that offered greater hope than the Bestern one, b&t he also effe#tively #reated his oBn spe#ial +eans of prod&#tion for philosophy in a !o+anian +ode, he gave a series of !o+anian Bords 0intr&, petre#ere, sinele, and others2 s&#h an intense and ri#h reading as to sat&rate the+ philosophi#ally 0and +ake the+ al+ost &ntranslatable2. *oi#a hi+self sit&ated this endeavor in Hegel-s #on#epts of &niversality, parti#&larity, and sing&larity 0se# *oi#a 198;\2. 3n taking &p these <&estions he Bas reopening a +aNor #on#ern of !o+anian interBar tho&ght/hoB the parti#&lar relates to the general 0@&niversal@2, or hoB s+all #&lt&res #an parti#ipate +#aningf&lly in a global order do+inated by others. *oi#a hoped to give this proble+, rooted in E&ropean tho&ght and !o+anian realities, an ansBer of E&ropean 0general2 di+ensions based in !o+anian 0parti#&lar2 +aterial, U=Vy obsession is to rehabilitate the individ&al, b&t not as an isolated individ% &al, rather as the individ&al invested Bith the poBer of the general. Dn this a#% #o&nt 3 abandon the skies 0the general2 so as to see the+ +irrored in o&r oBn Baters 0<&oted in Lii##an& 1987, 1992. His sol&tion to hoB the parti#&lar sho&ld be related to the general Bas to e+phasiIe the si+&ltaneo&s parti#ipation of the parti#&lar in its oBn parti#&larity and in the general as Bell, th&s to r###nter attention on the parti#&lariIed, or @idio+ati#,@ val&e. *oi#a Brote, U3V obNe#t to the pra#ti#e of both traditional and +odern logi#, Bhi#h s&bs&+es the individ&al &nder the generalL both Aristotle and +odern set theory inte% grate the part into die Bhole and the +e+ber into the set. o s&#h a logi# of s&bordination, of hierar#hy in the +ilitary sense, ... U3V oppose a logi# ... in Bhi#h the part is not pla#ed in the Bhole, b&t the Bhole together Bith the laBs on Bhi#h it rests is pla#ed Bithin the part 0*oi#a 198;\2. =arga 01988, 9;2 observes that the #on#ept appropriate to this &nderstanding is the hologra+, in Bhi#h the individ&al is loaded Bith all the senses of the general and holds Bithin itself all the latter-s logi#al for+s and relations. 3n a Bord, *oi#a-s obNe#tive Bas to #onstr&#t for both !o+ania and the Borld a har+oni# theory of the ontologi#al relation betBeen tradition and +odernity.@ he very nat&re of his proNe#t +ade hi+ interesting and &sef&l both to defenders of @tradition@/ proto#hronists and 6:9 @1CHDDL@ D" PH3LD1DPHE! CD*1 A* 3* *D3CA their allies/and to the @+odern@ partisans of a !o+anian link Bith the Eest/ the *oi#a 1#hool and those asso#iated Bith it. (ery feB of those interested in *oiea &nderstood the s&btlety of the proble+ he Bas posing or the sol&tion he atte+ptedL +ore i+portant Bas to appropriate hi+ so as to legiti+ate the goals of one or another fa#tion Bithin !o+anian #&lt&re. Proto#hronists/for e4a+ple, #riti# 1ilv#stri 0198$2/ interpreted his ai+ as the definition and rehabilitation of !o+anian identity and his analysis of lang&age as an effort to

a#hieve a spirit&al +orphology of !o+anian tho&ght that +ight reveal the @ethni# s&b#ons#io&s.@ "or s&#h readers, *oi#a Bas preo##&pied Bith <&estions not of reason b&t of!o+anianness, @the +eaning of *oi#a-s Bork is to offer the Borld a !o+anian sol&tion,@ as do the #reations of !o+anian s#&lptor Bran#&si 01ilv#stri 198$, 82. *oi#a Bas not entirely disingen&o&s in his rea#tion to this sort of reading, a fa#t for Bhi#h antiproto#hronists #riti#iIed hi+ severely.-@ 3t is tr&e that he Brote often abo&t the positive val&es of E&ropean #iviliIation as a +odel for !o+anians 0@Be E&ropeans@2 and that folloBing an atta#k for e4posing hi+self too readily to &se by poBer 0 &doran 19862, he #eased his No&rnalisti# Britings for a ti+eL Bhen he res&+ed, it Bas largely in antiproto#hronist No&rnals.-*onetheless, he ref&sed to take a +ore #ategori#al stand against @patriotard@ &ses of his Bork. Dne @eye%Bitness a##o&nt@ reported *oi#a-s p&bli#ly #lai+ing to be a pro%to#hronist hi+self 0CoNa 19892. He per+itted rep&bli#ation of earlier @!o+anian Britings,@ Bhi#h so+e #o++entators have fo&nd to be rife Bith H#rd#rianis+, !o+anti# nationalis+, and arg&+ents #lose to the hearts of proto#hronists 0se#, e.g., )arnoo&h 198;2. *oi#a-s hesitation in setting hi+self off fro+ proto#hronis+ Bas &n% derstandable, for it Bas the res&rgen#e of national val&es that enabled his ret&rn to !o+anian #&lt&ral life. As Lii#ean& p&t it, *oi#a b&rst into !o+anian #&lt&re beginning in 19:8, th&s at the ti+e Bhen tBo distin#t and parallel pheno+ena had taken pla#e in !o+ania, on die one hand, a liberalisation of tho&ght, an a##eptan#e of the fa#t that it is possible to think and to #reate #&lt&rally beyond dog+asL on the other, a preferen#e on the part of offi#ial politi#s for &pholding national differen#es rather than s&pranational integrating theses. *oi#a-s entire tho&ght. . . Bas a response to a tBofold obNe#tive need, the need to regain originality of tho&ght, after years of +ental +onotony bro&ght on by a diale#ti#al and histori#al +aterialis+ red&#ed to die level of s#hoolbooksL and the need for self%definition, for regaining a national #ons#io&sness 0Lii##anii 1987, 6752. he opening to national val&es Bas *oi#a-s opport&nity. His early e+bra#e by proto#hronists se#&red it, for a+ong the enth&siasti# re#ipients @1CHDDL@ D" PH3LD1DPHE! CD*1 A* 3* *D3CA 6:$ of his 19;5 book !o+anian Eays of 1peaking Philosophi#ally Bere f&t&re proto#hronist standard%bearers Pa&l Angh#l 019;52 and =ihai Un%ghean& 019;52. As Lii##an&-s s&++ary +akes #lear, the restoration of national val&es Bas only one side of a #oin Bhose other side Bas #apally #r&#ial to *oi#a-s ret&rn, the di+in&tion of philosophy-s role as prin#ipal legit%i+ator of !o+anian #o++&nis+.16 his di+in&tion Bas relative, for in a for+al sense =ar4is+ and +aterialist philosophy re+ained #entral, in a rigidifi#d and sloganiI#d for+L yet far +ore of the Beight of legiti+ation #a+e to be borne by nationalis+ and by dis#iplines s&#h as history. Eith the dethrone+ent of +aterialist philosophy, *oi#a-s kind of +etaphysi#s be#a+e possible again/as one philosopher told +e, @*oB that philosophy is no longer king, it is a#t&ally possible to do so+ething interesting in it.@ =oreover, st&dents began having a##ess to te4ts that #o&ld not have been &sed before, parti#&larly the Britings of philosophers fro+ the Eest, and possibilities in#reased for talented philosophy st&dents to travel to the Eest for st&dy. A+ong those Bho benefited fro+ these

opport&nities Bere tBo of *oi#a-s #hief dis#iples, Andr#i Ples& and Fabriel Lii#ean&. he dethrone+ent of +aterialist philosophy has tBo i+pli#ations for this dis#&ssion. "irst, it restored to philosophy debate over the definition and proper lineage of the dis#ipline and over Bhat #onstit&tes philosophi#al #o+peten#e. his +eant that in philosophy as in other fields, #onfli#t arose as to Bhose version best represented the dis#ipline and Bhat prior a##&+&lations sho&ld be reintegrated into it as the ne#essary +eans for philosophi#al prod&#tion. B&t se#ond, s&#h possible redefinition alBays #ontained an i+pli#it threat to the still%offi#ial legiti+ating ideology, =ar4is+. o #hange the definition of philosophy Bas +&#h +ore f&nda+entally politi#al than Bere debates over val&es in literat&re, history, so#iology, ethnography, or +ost other fields. 3n a Bord, +entioning Plato in a syste+ that vieBed itself as ideal Bas not an inno#ent gest&re. his se#ond reason and the a+big&ity at the #ore of *oi#a-s endeavor help to e4plain Bhy his tho&ght and tea#hings be#a+e so heavily politi#iIed, Bhy it be#a+e so i+portant that those aspiring to politi#al infl&en#e @#apt&re@ hi+ by e+phasiIing the nationalist aspe#ts of his philosophy, and Bhy politi#al a&thorities kept their distan#e fro+ hi+ despite this. Be#a&se philosophy Bas not^&st any old dis#ipline, a +ove+ent so+e saB as @#&lt&ral dissid#n## Bitho&t politi#s@ #&t very #lose to dissid#n## of a +ore broadly based kind, for Bhi#h reason the se#ret poli#e soon learned to keep the #entral *oi#ans &nder #onstant Bat#h. 6:: @1CHDDL@ D" PH3LD1DPHE! CD*1 A* 3* *D3CA *oi#a Banted to do @nothing +ore@ than open &p tho&ght, after an era in Bhi#h tho&ght had been fir+ly #losed. B&t in so+e fields of intelle#t&al a#tivity, @open tho&ght@ Bas far fro+ har+less.

The Batt"e Over Noica as a Contest for (epresentativeness

3t is #lear fro+ this preli+inary sket#h that *oi#a Bas ri#h in a+big&ities, +aking hi+ an e4#ellent prospe#t for sy+boli# +anip&lation and #o+peting genealogi#al appropriations. HoB did he va&lt fro+ the sphere of +ere thinkers into the sphere of #ontested sy+bolsK he +eans for this Bas the tBo books p&blished by his folloBer Fabriel Lii##an&, in 1987 and 198;.17 Lii##an& presents his So&rnal fro+ Patting as the diary he kept betBeen =ar#h 19;; and S&ly 1981, re#ording his en#o&nters Bith *oi#a on the +o&ntaintop at Paltinis. he No&rnal des#ribes his trips fro+ B&#harest to visit *oi#a, so+eti+es a##o+panied by other @dis#iples@L their dis#&ssions on topi#s both elevated and +&ndaneL and #olorf&l ane#dotes #on#erning *oi#a and his vieBs on #&lt&re, philosophy, and the proper a#tion for a #&lt&red person in a politi#iIed Borld. 1o+e of these vieBs are nothing short of o&trageo&s, b&t for over half the book Lii#ean& +erely notes the+ Bitho&t protest. Dnly belatedly do#s he present hi+self as differing Bith his +aster. his grad&al e+ergen#e into disagree+ent #onstit&tes the book-s e4pressed ai+, to ill&strate a @paid#i# +odel@ in #&lt&re, the +odel provided by *oi#a, Bho kneB not only hoB to instill #&lt&ral val&es in the absen#e of any instit&tional base or for+al reso&r#es b&t also hoB to enable his folloBers to liberate the+selves fro+ his t&telage. he the+e of @separating@ fro+ one-s +entor is basi# to the book-s str&#t&re and its #ontent. Lii##an& ends Bith a +agnifi#ent #hara#teriIation of

the tea#her fro+ Bho+ he has learned even hoB to #riti#iIe one Bho ta&ght hi+ so +&#h. he So&rnal Bas folloBed fo&r years later by latters, #onsisting of #orresponden#e that the So&rnals p&bli#ation had provoked a+ong *oi#a, his i++ediate dis#iples, several of their #lose asso#iates, and a feB other persons. his book to so+e e4tent repeats b&t also f&rther develops iss&es raised by the So&rnal, and it opens neB iss&es as Bell. Both the So&rnal and Letters Bork so+e i+portant effe#ts &pon the reader. "or one thing, both b&t espe#ially the So&rnal #reate a strong @1CHDDL@ D" PH3LD1DPHE! CD*1 A* 1* *D3CA 6:; sense of Lii##an& as a&thoritative in speaking for and abo&t his +entor/the affe#tion and intelle#t&al inti+a#y radiating fro+ these pages give hi+ a fair #lai+ to +onopoly over *oi#a. 1e#ond, both +ake philosophiIing very a##essible, by presenting it thro&gh ordinary #onversation. Even tho&gh the &lti+ate philosophi#al stakes of the iss&es &nder dis#&ssion ar# often invisible to the general reader, as #onversations they not only ar# a##essible b&t #onvey the i+pression that deep philosophi#al +atters #an be dis#&ssed like the health of one-s friends or a <&arrel Bith one-s neighbor. h&s, the books reveal a philosophi#al Borld that is i+portant and Bithin rea#h. hird, despite this i+pression of a##essibility, there is nonetheless a great deal of talk abo&t e4#l&sions, Bhat is and Bhat is not a BorthBhile a#tivity, Bho is or is not a good philosopher or #&lt&red person, and so forth. "inally, the books present the *oi#ans- Borld as one that instit&tes disagree+ent as the nor+ and as the +ost no&rishing environ+ent for tho&ght and groBth. his pre+ise enabled Letters, in parti#&lar, to e+bra#e the #ontradi#tory rea#tions it provoked.

T./ $/0#N#T#ON O0 ).#1OSO).2 +N$ T./ C1+#MS O0 #NT/11/CT3+1S

he So&rnal and Letters Bere greeted Bith a #hor&s of dissonan#e. 19 1o+e revieBers hailed one or the other as @a spirit&al advent&re &nlike nearly any other in !o+anian #&lt&re@ 0P##i# 19892, @e4e+plary, . . . a No&rnal of ideas, shoBing the +eeting of tBo persons of high #ons#io&sness engaged in a relation oflove and self%realiIation@ 0'oinas 19892, @#o&rageo&s@ 0Papahagi 198;2, and @one of the +ost signifi#ant te4ts . . . of re#ent ti+es@ 0=arino 198;2. Dthers, resentf&lly seiIing &pon the e4#l&sionary +ane&vers and #ontesting Lii##an&-s #lai+s to a&thority over *oi#a, spoke of the @fortified stronghold ofe4%#l&sivist arrogan#e@ revealed in the books 01teinhardt 19872, de#ried @*oi#is+, this si#kness of Carpathian provenan#e@ 0'in#s#& 198:2, a##&sed Lii##an& of an @egotisti#al@ presentation of *oi#a filtered thro&gh @dog+atis+@ 0=ih& 1989a2, or fo&nd the Borks @&nBorthy of philosophy@ 0Barb& 1988 UApril 8V, 62. hro&gh their revieBs, revieBers took potshots at one another, a##&sing others of @#heap readings@ of the book 0En#s#& 198;2 or s&pporting the atta#k of those Briting in other p&bli#ations 0B&d&#a 198;L L&#eafdr&l 198;2. =ost revieBs took one of tBo basi# strategi#s, either they praised the books and their a&thor 0and i+pli#itly the other dis#iples2, Bhile e4pressing 6:8 @1CHDDL@ D" PH3LD1DPHE! CD*1 A* 3* *51CA

reservations abo&t *oi#a 0e.g., Cia#hir 1987L 'oinas 19892, or they reviled the dis#iples and praised *oi#a, Bho+ they so&ght to defend fro+ his s#he+ing &s&rpers 0e.g., F#ana 198:L =a#ovi#i&# 198:L (. =ihail#s#& 198$L 1tro# 19892. hese repeated efforts to sever *oi#a fro+ his dis#iples betrayed an intense rivalry to define *oi#a and to pass final N&dg+ent on his @paidei#@ e4a+ple and his !o+anian philosophy. !eadily apparent in +ost of the negative revieBs, this #ontest Bas also a#knoBledged by the +ain *oi#ans as a+ong their pri+ary +otives for p&blishing the books. Altho&gh #riti#is+ #a+e fro+ +ore than one #orner of the #&lt&ral field, it Bas parti#&larly vir&lent fro+ the proto#hronists. 3t is not diffi#&lt to se# Bhy Lii#ean& aro&sed s&#h a rea#tion, for he had Britten, B&#harest #ontin&es to lie &nder an offensive by @proto#hronis+,@ a #&lt&ral sy+pto+ that in departing fro+ an inferiority #o+ple4, alBays ends in @the ref&sal of E&rope@ and the e4altation of eastern and a&to#hthono&s val&es. 1een th&s, proto#hronis+ . . . a#hieves e4#esses that re+ove #&lt&re fro+ the #ondition of +ini+al p&rity the spirit re<&ires in order to develop itself &ndist&rbed. And here so+ething odd is happening. UHe des#ribes hoB *oi#a-s @!o+anian philosophy@ #ontradi#ts 3lls having &rged his folloBers toBard Bestern #&lt&re and die <&est for &niversal spirit&al val&es, and hoB they feel betrayed by hi+.1 WHWe has alloBed hi+self to be invoked by all those babblers Bho play a t&ne that is Bell re#eived. hat *oi#a is #lai+ed fro+ tBo different dire#tions has given birth to a #onf&sed siniation he hi+self no&rished and in Bhi#h, for Ciod knoBs Bhat reason, he ind&lged hi+self Bith irresponsible gra#e. "or tliose Bho Bill #o+e after &s, for those noB #o+ing ot age in #&lt&ral ter+s, this #onf&sed sit&ation #annot help having &nfort&nate effe#ts. HoB +any Bill redis#over the vein ot a&thenti# #&lt&re, in this s+all battle in Bhi#h so+e invoke hi+ fro+ #&lt&ralist positions, others fro+ a&to#hthonist positions, and still others, e4asperated by both of these, #o+bat and detest hi+ fro+ still other positionsK 01987, 17;%1782. 1everal negative revieBs singled o&t this passage for #o++ent. A dire#t reply to Lii##an&-s <&estion #a+e in one of the +ost #riti#al of all, by 3on 1troe, a professor at the a#ade+y in Bhi#h Party #adres Bere trained, 3n the first pla#e, the vein of a&thenti# #&l+r# Bas opened by the orientation ot the histori# *inth Congress of the !o+anian Co++&nist Party. 1$ Let &s re#all that the revol&tionary and diale#ti#al spirit of this Congress p&ts into an a&% thenti# diale#ti#al perspe#tive the proble+ of rethinking the national val% &es. . . . *oi#a hi+self Bas able to prod&#e his +ost n&+ero&s and signifi#ant Borks by integrating hi+self in dlis pro#ess of #reation and innovation. *oi#a is ins#ribed as a diale#ti#ian in the history of o&r philosophy above all thro&gh his postBar #ontrib&tions .... li# <&alitative leap in *oi#a-s tho&ght is +arked by his Borks Britten fro+ the !o+anian perspe#tive 01troe 19892. @1CHDDL@ D" PH3LD1DPHE! CD*1 A* 3* *D3CA 6:9 he e4#hange raises tBo separate <&estions, the relation of *oi#a and the *oi#ans to =ar4is+, and their relation to national val&es. Both, hoBever, red&#e to the #WLi#stion, hoB is philosophy in !o+ania to be definedK Ar# ethni# <&estions an obsta#le to it, an aid, a sine <&a nonf 3s proper treat+ent of the #on#epts of =ar4is+ ne#essaryK 'ifferent ansBers to these <&estions Bo&ld ra+ify into several other iss&es, Bhi#h past Britings/past

a##&+&lations of #&lt&re and val&es/sho&ld be in#orporated into !o+anian philosophy and Bhi#h ar# irrelevantK Ehat behaviors, Bhat +e#hanis+s of trans+ission, are appropriate for the devotee of philosophy in !o+aniaK 3n Bhat instit&tions is philosophy best #reated and prote#tedK As Bith the proto#hronist debate in #hapter $, these <&estions re#eived a variety of ansBers, and the ansBers e4pressed different notions of val&e &nderlying different #lai+s that one or another progra+ best represented both !o+anian philosophy and !o+anian #&lt&re +ore broadly. Be#a&se the #o+peting ansBers Bere +ore n&+ero&s than #an be #overed here, 3 Bill to&#h on only three, +aterialist philosophy, Bhi#h 3 Bill #onsider b&t briefly, @*oi#an@ philosophy, and Bhat 3 Bill #all @eth%nophilosophy@/the latter tBo laying #lai+ both to a de#isive definition of philosophy and to *oi#a hi+self.1: hese latter tBo Bere +&#h s+aller than either the for+er or the large gro&p doing Bhat Be +ight #all @nor+alX philosophy 0in a )&hnian sense2, Bhi#h #onsisted of history of philosophy, analyti# philosophy, episte+ology, and so forth, &s&ally having +ini+al @+aterialist@ #ontent and a heavy Bestern e+phasis.-; 3ts pra#titioners disting&ished the+selves fro+ the *oi#ans #hiefly by doing +ore @#&ratorship@ and trans+ission than philosophi% #al #reation and by avoiding +etaphysi#s, *oi#a-s spe#ialty. his gro&p and the older +aterialists o##&pied +ost of the &niversity positions and instit&tes of philosophy. Dne #annot dis#&ss a #ontest over the definition of philosophy and its pla#e in !o+anian #&lt&re Bitho&t at least a rit&al boB in the dire#tion of Bhat held #enter stage for tBo de#ades, =ar4ist philosophy. =y boB Bill be only rit&al, be#a&se =ar4ist philosophy in !o+ania did not reprod&#e itself into a se#ond generation, in the 1985s, s#ar#ely anyone Bas #arrying on serio&s philosophi#al in<&iries of a +aterialist sort, nearly all having +oved in other dire#tions. Cet the rhetori# of instit&tionaliIed =ar4is+ #ontin&ed to per+eate philosophy and to set a parti#&lar agenda for philosophi#al tho&ght. 3 Bill &se a +agaIine intervieB Bith the dire#tor of the 3nstit&te of Philosophy in B&#harest, Fh. CaIan 0se# Brat#s#& 19882, to provide a s&++ary of this agenda, disting&ishing it par#nth#ti#ally fro+ *oi#is+. 03 &sed this intervieB be% 6;5 @1CHDDL@ D" PH3LD1DPHE! CD*1 A* 3* *D3CA #a&se it happened to be at handL its e+phases do not depart visibly fro+ those of #o&ntless #o+parable arti#les in diverse p&bli#ations.2 3n this intervieB, philosophy is defined as a so#ial s#ien#e 0rather than, as *oi#a Bo&ld say, a for+ of #&lt&ral #reation2, Bhose role is to p&rs&e s#i#ntifi#ally rigoro&s resear#h ai+ing at e4planation 0*oi#a Bo&ld speak of spe#&lation or interpretation2 so as to enri#h and develop the revol&tionary ideology of the Borking #lass. his kind of philosophy e4ists in #ontin&al #onfrontation Bith idealist philosophies 0s&#h as *oi#a-s2. A+ong the persons CaIan na+es as having p&blished the @+ost representative !o+anian #ontrib&tions@ to #onte+porary philosophi#al tho&ght, he +akes no +ention of either *oi#a or #thno%philosoph#rs. he proble+s philosophers treat in#l&de @f&nda+ental pro#esses of so#io%e#ono+i# and spirit&al reality proper to the #onstr&#tion of so#ialist so#iety in o&r #o&ntry, philosophi#al i+pli#ations of the te#hnologi#al revol&tion, pro#esses of for+ing and transfor+ing so#ialist #ons#io&sness,@ and so forth. he obNe#tives of s&#h Bork ar# to solve so#ial

proble+s in the present, not si+ply to spe#&late 0as *oi#a do#s2. "ro+ CaIan-s list of those Bho represent the tradition of philosophi#al resear#h in !o+ania, it is #lear that even +aterialist philosophy benefited fro+ the r#s&s#itation of national val&es after 19:5, for the list in#l&des Bhat one #o&ld #all both @progressive@ and @irra%tionalist@ or @+ysti#al@ thinkers fro+ the !o+anian past. he a##&+&lated philosophi#al learning that a #onte+porary philosopher sho&ld +aster, therefore, in#l&des not N&st the te4ts of =ar4is+%Leninis+ 0&n% +#ntion#d, b&t &nderstood2 b&t also !o+anian philosophers of stat&re, nearly all of Bho+ had been trained in E&rope. CaIan-s intervieB #learly i+plies that philosophy is to be N&dged by #o+bined standards of politi#al &tility and professional #o+peten#e, the latter defined in relation to a Britten and spe#ialist rather than pop&lar tradition 0e+phases *oi#a Bo&ld a##ept2. he relations betBeen +aterialist philosophy and the *oi#an or #th% nophilosophi#al variants Bere #o+pli#ated, as the latter tBo set the+selves off fro+ ea#h other partly by &se of ter+s privileged Bithin the for+er. his is +ost easily seen in vario&s &ses of the Bord @diale#ti#,@ as in 1troe-s reply to Lii#ean&, above. Here is 1tro# again, this ti+e #lai+ing proper &se of diale#ti#s not N&st against *oi#a-s folloBers b&t also against @dog+ati#@ +aterialis+, Lii#ean& reNe#ts n&t N&st *oi#a b&t !o+anian diale#ti#al tho&ght, !o+anian philosophy in all that +akes it +ost spe#ifi#. . . . Ee do not intend to give hi+ lessons in diale#ti#al +aterialis+, . . . nor to re+ind hi+ of the !o+anian #on% @1CHDDL@ D" PH3LD1DPHE! CD*1 A* 3* *D3CA 6;1 trib&tions to philosophy over the past tBo de#ades Ua #lear referen#e to C#a&s#s#&-s tho&ght/k.v.V. He #o&ld have fo&nd o&t, had he been ani+ated by an obNe#tive spirit, that there is another diale#ti# besides that of the bad te4t% books fro+ Bhi#h he Bas ta&ght. *oi#a and Lii#ean& ar# at opposite poles . . . Dne W *oi#aV is a diale#ti#ian . . . Ub&tV Lii#ean& +issed the lesson that he #o&ld have learned fro+ *oi#a, the lesson of diale#ti#s 01troe 19892. 1troe thereby pla#es *oi#a Bithin a =ar4ist tradition 0Bhi#h *oi#a Bo&ld abN&re2 and e4#l&des both his folloBers and @dog+ati#@ =ar4ists of an earlier era, Bho ostensibly #orr&pted Lii##an&-s 0and +any others-2 philosophi#al thinking. Here Be se# a #ontest over #orre#t treat+ent of diale#ti#s, Bhile #harges of @dog+atis+@ls are &sed to lay Baste other #lai+s Bithin philosophy. 3n this environ+ent, Lii#ean& too fo&nd it ne#essary to #lai+ skill in diale#ti#s. He did so in a pe#&liar Bay, in the Prefa#e to Letters, Bhere he anno&n#ed his hope that the book Bo&ld trans#end its spatial and te+poral parti#&lars to be#o+e a lasting #&lt&ral val&e, to enter the real+ of logos. An organiIed <&est 0even if it is by #han#e2 Bithin the spa#e of logos is #alled diale#ti#s. 'iale#ti#s/a Bord that has been +&#h ab&sed lately and Bhose sense has been lost/gains ba#k its original p&rity, the #onfrontation of #on% s#ien#es that seek #larifi#ation in the region of a tr&th that +ay or +ay not be fo&nd. 'iale#ti#s is, for this reason, the very perfor+an#e of philosophy . . . 0198;, ;, original e+phasis2. Letters therefore #lai+s the stat&s of a philosophi#al Bork by virt&e of its +ethod, Bhi#h is the @very perfor+an#e of philosophy@ and Bhi#h re#overs the original +eaning of @diale#ti#s,@ ab&sed by +aterialists and others. hese &ses of @diale#ti#s@ shoB that altho&gh both the *oi#ans and their #riti#s felt #o+pelled to draB &pon a lang&age established by =ar4ist philosophy, they did so not pri+arily to displa#e +aterialist philosophy 0Bhi#h neither #o&ld

+anage to do2 b&t to strike at one another. 3t is this battle that 3 Bish to #on#entrate on, #hiefly for Bhat it reveals abo&t the iss&es at stake, both i+pli#it and e4pli#it, for the *oi#ans. Dne +ight obNe#t at this point that in setting &p @*oi#an@ philosophy and @ethnophilosophy@ 3 a+ not only giving &nBarranted stat&re to tBo pyg+ies b&t also i+properly pairing a tr&ly philosophi#al +ove+ent Bith a b&n#h of a+ate&rs having no s&#h stat&s. 3ndeed, several !o+anian readers of this #hapter #o+plained of pre#isely this. Be#a&se the obNe#tion shares the val&e position of the *oi#ans by privileging 6;6 @1CHDDL@ D" PH3LD1DPHE! CD*1 A* 3* *D3CA professional philosophy, Bith its parti#&lar stake in professionalis+, 3 ref&se the #hallenge. Eho is @tr&ly professional,@ @a real philosopher,@ a @serio&s intelle#t&al,@ and so forth, is less i+portant for +y p&rposes than that the *oi#ans and the #thnophilosoph#rs Bere engaged in a hostile dialog&e abo&t the definition of philosophy and #&lt&re. 3nspe#ting their dialog&e helps &s to &nderstand Bhat ea#h of the+ stood for and, fro+ this, the larger field of #&lt&re in its relation to politi#s. 3 Bill pro#eed, then, to o&tline their different ansBers to <&estions abo&t Bhat sorts of a##&+&lated #apital ar# the @sto#k@ &pon Bhi#h philosophy sho&ld draB and Bhere this sto#k resides 0in print, in so&ls2, Bhat raB +aterials ar# needed for good philosophi#al prod&#tion, and Bhat ar# the gro&nds for #o+peten#e. he philosophy advo#ated by *oi#a-s folloBers/and, as they presented hi+, by *oi#a hi+self/e+phasiIed i+ported 0Bestern2 val&es that provide raB +aterial for spe#&lation, the re+aining raB +aterial #o+ing fro+ one-s individ&al talents 0@geni&s@2, Bith #o+peten#e defined thro&gh professional or e4pert #lai+s. *oi#a-s prono&n#e+ents as reported in the So&rnal and his a#t&al philosophi# o&tp&t +ade it #lear that for hi+, the fo&ndation of philosophy #o&ld not be b&ilt on any @inheritan#e@ b&t that of An#ient Freek and +ore re#ent E&ropean philosophi#al tho&ght. "or *oi#a and his folloBers, the @+eans of philosophi#al prod&#tion@ Bere the sto#ks of #&lt&ral #apital professional philosophers have a##&+&lated over #ent&ries, indeed +illennia, of tho&ght, largely in a Britten tradition, an i++ense sto#k of #&lt&ral val&es. his i++ense sto#k +&st in so+e sense be reappropriated aneB by any individ&al #lai+ing title to the dis#ipline, one do#s not draB &pon it a&to+ati#ally thro&gh +e+bership in a #o++&nity. Altho&gh it is tr&e that *oi#a/&nlike his folloBers/also fo&nd philosophi#ally relevant @raB +aterials@ in !o+anian traditions, he +ost #ertainly Bo&ld not regard this as s&ffi#ient basis for philosophi#al #reation, Bhi#h #an o##&r only Bithin a philosophi#al dis#ipline of spe#&lative tho&ght established above all by the Freeks and the Fer+ans. *oi#ans defined @tr&e@ philosophy not N&st by pla#ing it in a genealogy of Britten professional te4ts b&t also by deli+iting it fro+ s#ien#e, the arts, or literary #riti#is+ 0see beloB2/that is, by positioning it in a larger field of a#ade+i# and e4pert spe#ialiIations, rather than by its relation to national +atters. hey also insisted on stringent and spe#ialist standards of professional #o+peten#e/@the e4igen#ies of so+ething Bell done.@ his point Bas +ade in an arti#le in Bhi#h tBo *oi#ans #o+pared their translation of frag+ents fro+ Heidegger-s

@1CHDDL@ D" PH3LD1DPHE! CD*1 A* 3* *D3CA 6;7 Beinfi and i+e Bith tBo other versions, one of the+ &sed in the philosophy depart+ent of B&#harest University. hey #on#l&ded that the%other tBo translations Bere far fro+ a##&rate and gave a talse i+age of the original, oBing to the fa#t that the other translators did not &nderstand Bell eno&gh the philosophi#al #ontent of the passages in <&estion 0)leining#r and Lii##an& 198;, 9:2. his Bas a blatant #lai+ to s&perior professional stat&s on gro&nds of #o+peten#e in the E&ropean 0rather than so+e other2 philosophi#al tradition /that is, a blatant apology for professional e4pert stat&s as &nderstood in the Eest. 3n #ontrast to the *oi#an vieB of philosophy Bas that of the #thnophilosoph#rs, Bhi#h Bas that #ontrary to the *oi#ans- denials, a +aNor philosophy #an be b&ilt &p &sing the @raB +aterial@ of the national lang&age and spirit. "ar fro+ being irrelevant or an obsta#le to philosophy, these #an prod&#e +odel philosophi#al Borks 01tro# 1989L =a#ovi#i&# 198:L CoNa 19892. A perhaps e4tre+e e4a+ple of this vieB Bas the interest in Feto%'adan philosophy 0that is, the pres&+ed philosophi#al pre#epts of one of the peoples seen as an#estral to present%day !o+anians2 and +ore generally in the &nBritten philosophi#al Bisdo+ of the !o+anian people. hese interests appeared in arti#les s&#h as tBo on @Proverbs, the "irst Philosophy of the !o+anians@ 0Calendar 19882 and @Ele+ents of UnBritten Philosophy in !o+anian C&lt&re@ 03an#& 19882, and a series of essays on the philosophy of the Feto%'a#ians, by a loB%ranking resear#her at the Philosophy 3nstit&te 0(eti%san& 19861%iii2. hese arti#les #aref&lly e4plained Bhat #hara#teristi#s a philosophy o&ght to have, a logi#al str&#t&re, a generaliIing #hara#ter, an ontologi#al &niverse and a theoreti#al #ontent, the e+ission of N&dg+ents, and the obNe#tive of finding general tr&th. hat is, the arti#les displayed an e4pli#it intention of defining Bhat philosophy is. hey also e+phasiIed an &nBritten a##&+&lation of pop&lar 0rather than learned2 philosophi#al Bisdo+, a#<&ired si+ply by being born into the !o+anian people 0or so one gathers/the +atter Bas not spelled o&t2. his re<&ires +&#h less individ&aliIed a#<&isition thro&gh patient st&dy than is i+plied in *oi#a-s vieB. Here is an ill&strative passage, he ar#hai# for+ of !o+anian philosophy ... is to be identified Bith &nBritten philosophy. ... 3t is an i+pli#it philosophyX &nsvst#+ati#, a state of the spirit, a spirit&al attit&de, a protophilosophy, on the basis of Bhi#h there Bill develop an e4pli#it philosophy as an e4er#ise of the spirit, as do#trinaire tho&ght . . . affir+ed parti#&larly thro&gh the +eans of individ&aliIed thinkers W as opposed to the #olle#tive +entality/k.v.V. Constantin *oi#a . . . refers to this Bisdo+ as the beginning of knoBledge, as the prehistory of philosophy. . . . Ul#+ents 6;9 @1CHDDL@ D" PH3LD1DPHE! CD*1 A* 3* *D3CA of &nBritten philosophy have e4isted in !o+anian #&lt&re ever sin#e the !o+a% nian people and its spirit&ality Bere for+ed . . . Uand oBe +&#h toV the a&to#hthono&s vein of Feto%'a#ian spirit&ality. . . . U h&s,V !o+anian philosophy did not spring &p belatedly . . . W b&t has beenV a perennial val&e of !o+anian spirit&ality 03an#& 1988, original e+phases2. 3n this ethnophilosophi#al definition of philosophy, the prior a##&+&lations &pon Bhi#h philosophy sho&ld draB ar# not other Britings in philosophy b&t the

reservoirs of !o+anian spirit&ality. Dne arti#le spe#ified that Bhat is a##&+&lated/literally, a+assed as treas&re UteIa&riIatV/in pop&lar philosophy is life e4perien#e 0rather than other people-s Britings or tho&ghts2 _Calendar 19882. 3nsofar as Britten philosophy is i+portant, it Bill be e4#l&sively the !o+anian philosophies of people like L&#ian Blaga, @denigrated@ by the @i+porters of E&ropean val&es@/that is, by the *oi#ans 0=a#ovi#i&# 198:2. h&s, !o+anian philosophy Bo&ld be b&ilt not on the #&lt&ral a##&+&lations e+bodied in other 0Bestern2 philosophies b&t on so+e alternative kind of sy+boli# a##&+&lation, perhaps one +ight #all it ra#ial. *one of this see+s o&trageo&s fro+ a #ertain anthropologi#al point of vieB, to Bhi#h the notion of an @#thnophilosophy@ resting on oral and e4periential fo&ndations is <&ite #ongenial. Parallel ideas ar# fo&nd even in so+e Briting in so#ial theory/one thinks ofFra+s#i-s e+phasis on @#o++on sense@ as the philosophy of the +asses oppressed by the hege+oni# ideologies professional philosophers have #reated. Ehat +akes these e4a+ples signifi#ant for +y p&rposes is their e4press #lai+s for a #ertain kind of philosophy, #aref&lly defined as s&#h, and resting on #ertain kinds of a##&+&lation. Pre#isely by virt&e of their invoking so+eone like *oi#a, these #lai+s reveal a #ontest to define the field. Ethnophilosoph#rs and their allies Noined this #ontest for repr#s#n%tativ#n#ss not +erely by offering #o+peting i+ages of philosophy b&t by seeking to dis<&alify their opponents. hey a##&sed the *oi#ans 0&nlike *oi#a, they Bo&ld say2 of being elitists 0=a#ovi#i&# 198:2, dog%+atists and 4#nophil#s 01troe 19892, persons seeking to &s&rp a fa+e they otherBise #o&ld not earn 0Conte+por#+&l 198;2, and generally hostile to the val&es of @the people@ in both so#ial and ethni# senses. he opponents these Briters per#eived Bere not li+ited to *oi#ans, hoBever, b&t in#l&ded other philosophies as Bell, Bhose definition of the dis#ipline they also #ontested. his is evident espe#ially in #o+plaints against persons Bho @anathe+atiIe Blaga and Parvan so as to p&blish intervieBs Bith Heidegger and L&ka#s@ 0(etisan& 1986iii2. h&s *oi#ans 0Heidegg#rians2 and =ar4ist philosophers 0L&ka#sians2 @1CHDDL@ D" PH3LD1DPHE! CD*1 A* 3* *D3CA 6;$ alike Bere a##&sed of i+porting foreign val&es and dis+issing the greats of indigeno&s philosophy. 3n spite of Uthe ad+iration of Plato and Dvid for itV, Feto%'a#ian philosophy has been neither re#ogniIed nor in#l&ded/even in its +ost general lines/in o&r di#tionaries and en#y#lopedias. 3t Bas not even in the History of !o+anian Philosophy. . . . Ehat Bas the reasoning of o&r resear#hers, spe#ialiIing in every philosophy e4#ept that of o&r #o&ntryK @Ee have no te4ts@L @those ar# only state+ents abo&t the philosophy of UFeto%'a#ian priest2 >a+ol4# ...@... he spirit&al infir+ity of these Bo&ld%be spe#ialists is apparent fro+ their very negations. After all, fro+ 1o#rates Be have no te4ts either, only Plato-s state% +ents abo&t hi+, yet his philosophy is in the en#y#lopedias 0(etisan& 1986ii2. 19 hese ethnophilosophers Baged Bar against all the persons entren#hed in &niversity depart+ents and instit&tes, Bho +onopoliIed the Briting of di#tionaries and en#y#lopedias 0re#all the proto#hronists- distress at the a&thors of s#hool +an&als and anthologies2 and Bho defended sy+boli# a##&+&lations that ar# Britten, failing to re#ogniIe the i+portant sphere of orality. he targets of this sniping Bere not the *oi#ans, Bho had no

instit&tional #lo&t, b&t old @dog+atists@ and others Bho +anned the #entral fortresses of the dis#ipline. "or ethnophilosophers, these people #learly la#ked ele+entary philosophi#al #o+peten#e, Bhi#h ethnophilosophy Bo&ld define as above all a spirit&al <&alifi#ation 0rather than an e4pert one2. his last observation re+inds &s that ea#h of the parties Be have been dis#&ssing/*oi#a hi+self, his folloBers, and ethnophilosophers/spoke fro+ a +arginal pla#e in the instit&tions of #&lt&re, and the for+ of their +arginality appears in the #lai+s they +ade for philosophy. *oi#a-s +any de#ades of near% #o+plete re+oval fro+ nor+al e+ploy+ent in state instit&tions of #&lt&re and his la#k of s&##ess in obtaining offi#ial reso&r#es for +ost of his proNe#ts a##ords Bell Bith his representing #&lt&re as absol&tely a&tono+o&s, as a sele#tion by virt&e of e4#l&sionL the only thing @instit&tionaliIed@ abo&t hi+ that Bas relevant to #lai+ing #&lt&ral pree+inen#e Bas his na+e 0Fh#orghi& 198$Y, ;:%852. His +ain dis#iples Bere only so+eBhat less +arginal to the for+al instit&tions of philosophy and #&lt&re, Lii##an& Bas throBn o&t of his initial post in the 3nstit&te of Philosophy for ref&sing Co++&nist party +e+bership, and fro+ there he Bent to a resear#h post in the 3nstit&te of Plasti# Arts/not e4a#tly the #enter of philosophi#al prod&#tion. here he Noined felloB *oi#an Ples&, Bho had lost his tea#hing post d&ring the rans#endental =editation s#andal 0see #hapter 72. "or both of these people, the p&bli#ation and other professional #hannels =... 6;: @1CHDDL@ D" PH3LD1DPHE! CD*1 A* 3* *D3CA nor+al for philosophers Bere sharply restri#tedL e4#ept for their integration into the Eriters- Union and their ti#s Bith i+portant fig&res in literat&re, their +arginality Bo&ld have been even greater. E<&ally +arginal to the philosophy establish+ent Bere the ideas peddled by #th%nophilosoph#rsL their sit&ation Bas #o+parable to that of the early pro%to#hronists 0Bho Noined the+ in atta#king the folloBers of *oi#a2, denied professional visibility by an entren#hed gro&p in both philosophy and literat&re. his is a+ply attested by their #o+plaints against @dog+atists@ of not only *oi#an b&t also +aterialist breed. Ea#h of these #a+e to the #ontest for r#pr#sentativ#n#ss Bith a proposed strategy that Bo&ld privilege #ertain val&es and therefore shift the #enter of gravity Bithin philosophy or #&lt&re itself 0and perhaps so+e reso&r#es as Bell2 so+eBhat in the dire#tion of the parti#&lar +argin they o##&pied. he nat&re of the strategies proposed helps to reveal +ore f&lly the field of val&es Bithin Bhi#h !o+anian #&lt&re Bas being prod&#ed, for any #redible strategy +&st pro+ote val&es that r#sonate to at least so+e e4tent Bith val&es #ha+pioned by gro&ps #loser to the #enterL otherBise the #lai+s Bo&ld have no #redibility at all. 3t Bas pre#isely the f&ror raised by *oi#a-s 1#hool that s&ggests #redible a#tivity at the +argins of #entral val&es, a#tivity that evoked opposition fro+ others Bho Bere also +arginal and &pBardly +obile. Dne Bay to gain insight into people-s vieB of the so#ial Borld is by looking for i+ages of p&rity and poll&tion in their dis#o&rse, as 3 did Bith the @tr&th% +orality@ of historians in #hapter : 0#f. Handler 1988, 9;/$52. HoB did *oieans and others envision poll&tion in the #&lt&ral Borld, and Bhat does this i+ply by Bay of p&rifying a#tivityK "or both *oi#a and his

folloBers, @ he territory of #&lt&re +&st be prote#ted only fro+ &nBarranted a+bitions, fro+ the ignoran#e of the ignorant, and fro+ i+post&re@ 0)leining#r and Lii##an& 198;,8$2. hat is, the #hief so&r#e of poll&tion is ignoran#eX in#o+peten#eX and #&lt&ral i+post&reX Bhi#h +eans that p&rifi#ation #o+es fro+ #&ltivating professional #o+peten#e and disse+inating its res&lts. 6@ "or their opponents, poll&tion #o+es fro+ e4ternal borroBing and i+itationX the introd&#tion of foreign #&lt&ral +atter. h&s, the p&rifiers Bill be @WtVhos# Bho do not #hase after i+ported &niversalist +odels, those Bho &se their oBn heads to think@ 01troe 19892. he tBo positions legiti+ate, respe#tively, an intelle#t&al strategy in Bhi#h a##&+&lation of knoBledge and e4pertise takes pride of pla#e, per+itting a defense of tr&thX and a prote#tionist strategy ai+ed at red&#ing foreign #o+petition for an internal sy+boli# +arket and at defending #&lt&ral self%s&ffi#ien#y. Ea#h strategy @1CHDDL@ D" PH3LD1DPHE! CD*1 A* 3* *D3CA 6;; entailed a #lear attit&de toBard the standard preferred by the others. he *oieans reNe#ted #&lt&ral a&tar#hy o&tright, regarding i+ports as integral to professional #o+peten#e and lo#al prod&#tionL their opponents vieBed #lai+s to professional #o+peten#e Bith skepti#is+, espe#ially Bhen borroBing &nderlay the+, and s&pported a #o+peten#e that is innate in the ethni# #olle#tivity. Ea#h of these alternatives played &pon val&es s&pported by one or another gro&p +ore #entrally sit&ated in #ither the politi#al apparat&s or #&lt&ral instit&tions. Fiven +y dis#&ssion of proto#hronis+, 3 need not e4pand at length &pon the val&es being s&pported by #thnophiloso%phy, these shoB on#e again hoB persons la#king #ontrol over professional instit&tions 0the EritersUnion, the instit&tes and &niversity depart+ents of literat&re and philosophy2 #o+pensated by seeking an a##o++odation Bith the nationalis+ of the Party leadership. "or none of these people Bas @professional #o+peten#e@ a signifi#ant val&e, and for at least so+e of the+, national identity Bas a veritable obsession. *oi#a and his folloBers, by #ontrast, had no gro&nds for #lai+ing a pla#e in !o+anian #&lt&re other than e4pertise and #reation based &pon it. hese re+ained #redible val&es only be#a&se of the appeal to reason, knoBledge, and e4pert stat&s that lies at the heart of diale#ti#al +aterialis+ as a s#ien#e of so#iety. 3n appeals to #o+peten#e, *oi#a and +aterialis+ had #o++on gro&nd, for e4a+ple, *oi#a Billingly re#o++ended p&bli#ation of a treatise Britten by a +aterialist philosopher, Bhi#h he fo&nd tr&ly e4#ellent and original. he @offi#ial@ philosophy shared +ore Bith *oieans than Bith ethnophilosoph#rs, Bho therefore be#a+e alar+ed at the #redible threat *oi#is+ posed despite its +arginality. After all, =ar4ist philosophy and *oi#a shared a genealogy fro+ the Freeks &p thro&gh )ant and Hegel, a genealogy the others Banted to +ake philosophi#ally irrelevant. 3t is i+portant to be #lear, hoBever, N&st hoB e4pli#it a #lai+ the *oieans, Bith their referen#es to #o+peten#e and e4pert stat&s, Bere laying to a spe#ifi# kind of so#ial spa#e. Like antiproto#hronists Bith their e+phasis on aestheti# val&es independent of politi#s and like those historians Bho insisted on s#ientifi# standards of resear#h, *oi#a and his folloBers Bere resisting the invasion of the intelle#t&al @spa#e@ by the val&es of the Party. heirs Bas a poignant atte+pt to re#onstr&#t and defend an eroding a&thority for spe#ialiIation that Bas professionally rather than politi#ally defined. 3t Bas the

strategy of an intelligentsia e4#l&ded fro+ poBer and an4io&s to +aintain elite stat&s thro&gh #lai+s to e4pertise and #&lt&ral a&thority. 6;8 @1CHDDL@ D" PH3LD1DPHE! CD*1 A* 3* *D3CA

S+1?+T#ON T.(O3*. C31T3(/ +N$ T./ )(O$3CT#ON O0 3(*/NC2

his #lai+ to e4pert stat&s Bas not +ade stri#tly in its oBn na+e, hoBever, b&t in the na+e of #reating d&rable #&lt&ral val&es. 3t Bas a plea voi#ed by *oi#a, above all, for Bho+ #&lt&ral #reation infor+ed by #o+peten#e Bas not only the proper ai+ for intelle#t&als b&t the very basis of !o+ania-s salvation. "or *oi#a, #&lt&ral a#tion Bas vital for the fate of the people, U Vhe destiny of peoples, a##ording to *oi#a, passes thro&gh #&lt&re, and peoples Bho have not #reated great #&lt&re/like die Hittkes or die Etr&s#ans/ have disappeared fro+ history. C&lt&ral #apital `si#` and #&lt&ral prod&#tion, and not its degree of parti#ipation in Borld events, are Bhat ass&re a people-s s&rvival. he history of a people is therefore the history of its #&lt&re. *oi#a +ade of this an e4istential propositionL and he took it &pon hi+self to s&#h a degree that he gave testi+ony to it in both the interior and die e4terior order of his life. He #hose to serve !o+anian #&lt&re Bith a passion Bhi#h proved that not N&st #&lt&re p&re and si+ple Bas at stake . . . b&t the very being of a #o++&nity, to Bhi#h only #&lt&re #o&ld give the depth and degree of #ertainty essential to it. DtherBise Be #annot &nderstand die persistent hint of +issionaris+ in the prin#ipal +o+ents of his life and in his Borks the+selves 0Lii#ean& 1987, 679, original e+phasis2. As *oi#a e4pressed the sa+e idea to +e, @ he fate of !o+anians as a people is to disappear if they do not #reate so+ething tr&ly re+arkable.@ his #&lt&ral +issionaris+, p&rs&ed Bithin i+ages of salvation and Bith an overriding sense of &rgen#y and desperation, Bere e4hibited to so+e e4tent by others dis#&ssed in this book 0'. Prodan, the antiproto#hronists, so+e proto#hronists as Bell2, b&t its &n&s&ally strong presen#e in the Bork of *oi#a and his folloBers has led +e to postpone dis#&ssion of it &ntil noB. he +issionaris+ behind *oi#a-s advo#a#y of #&lt&re as the only +eans by Bhi#h peoples #o&ld #ontin&e to e4ist/#o&ld be saved fro+ e4tin#tion61/Bas noted by +any #o++entators. As one revieBer s&++ariIed it, for *oi#a #&lt&re Bas not a for+, b&t the only for+, of salvation 0Ung&r#an& 19872. *oi#a-s salvational idea Bas so+eti+es li+ited to the notion of s&rvival 0#&lt&re is the people-s only #han#e to s&rvive U'oinas 1989V2, b&t it Bas also #olored by the religio&s asso#iations *oi#a o##asionally invited/his #onstant referen#e, for e4a+ple, to the bibli#al parable of the prodigal son. Df all the areas of #&lt&re, he said, only theology offered a dire#t ro&te into philosophy. He en#o&raged or @1CHDDL@ D" PH3LD1DPHE! CD*1 A* 3* *D3CA 6;9 per+itted hi+self to be linked Bith religion-s +eanings, +ost strikingly in his re<&est to be b&ried in the her+itage near Paltinis 0Bhere, folloBing Drthodo4 +onasti# #&sto+, his grave is +arked Bith nothing b&t his first na+e2. 3n the e&logy delivered at his f&neral, the ransylvanian ar#hbishop 0Pla+ad#ala 198;2 e+phasiIed the religio&s di+ension visible in so+e of *oi#a-s early Britings, parallels of hi+self Bith the Apostle Pa&l, <&otations fro+ the Bible,

repeated &se of the Bords @savior,@ @spirit&ality,@ @h&+bleness,@ and so forth. 66 =any others also Brote of *oi#a in +onasti# or religio&s i+agery 01i+ion 1987L #odores#& 198;2, so+eti+es in e4tended for+ 01teinhardt 19882, and both *oi#ans and others spoke of his style of tea#hing as an @initiation into a +ystery@ 0Lii#ean& 1987, 1:1, 66;L Cio#arlie 1988, 672. *oi#a-s folloBers 0espe#ially Lii#ean&2 often &sed a si+ilar lang&age of salvation, of spirit&al refresh+ent and p&rifi#ation. "or e4a+ple, *oi#a sent &s to the great te4ts and instr&+ents of E&ropean #&lt&re, ... as Bellsprings for a spirit that is not #losed &p in provin#ial fr&strations and van% ities. "or o&r generation, he represents a g&arantee of the spirit in its #&lt&ral variant, as a spirit&al p&rifi#ation that +&st be +aintained and propagated thro&gh ongoing a##ess to the verified so&r#es of this p&rifi#ation. Perhaps never before in !o+ania has #&lt&re a#hieved s&#h a val&e as the instr&+ent of salvation. o +aster Freek, Latin and Fer+an, to translate and edit/in a Borld Bo&nded &nto deadi by tBenty years of dog+atis+/Plato and Plotin&s, )ant, )ierkegaard, *ietIs#he, "re&d, or Heidegger, to Brite er&dite and refined books/all these Bere +o+ents in a rit&al of liberation of the spirit. . . . his dis#reet and &nspe#ta#&lar liberation . . . Bas and still is the for+ in Bhi#h #er% tain great val&es of today-s !o+anian spirit&ality Bill s&rvive 0Lii#ean& 1987, 676%677, 67:%67;2. 1i+ilarly, @W Vh# endpoint of *oi#a-s tea#hing Bas #&lt&ral #reation as a strange for+ of +odern sa#rality@ 0Lii#ean& 1987, 67$2. 1&#h i+agery e4pressed not N&st *oi#a-s ai+s b&t the +ission of his folloBers also. Lii#ean& has said that he p&blished his So&rnal so as to #o++&ni#ate a #&lt&ral e4perien#e that Bas @salvational,@ a Bord he has &sed repeatedly in #onne#tion Bith #&lt&re. By #onstr&#ting his #&lt&ral +ission as one of salvation and e<&ating a people-s #&lt&re Bith its life, *oi#a bro&ght the pen&+bra of religio&s +eanings asso#iated Bith s&#h saving +issions into the servi#e of his oBn proNe#t. his proNe#t a+o&nted to gaining attention for his kind of intelle#t&al a#tivity by tying it dire#tly to the *ation-s fate/by Bhat 3 #alled in #hapter 1 the @defense of the *ation.@ "or s&#h a proNe#t, religio&s i+agery Bas apt not only be#a&se it +ight Bin attention fro+ 685 @1CHDDL@ D" PH3LD1DPHE! CD*1 A* 3* *D3CA persons f&r Bho+ religion Bas still a val&e/one opposed to =ar4is+%Leninis+ /b&t also be#a&se the #h&r#h too provided #ent&ries of @defending the *ation@ thro&gh a #o+parable strategy of ass&+ing its val&es Bo&ld o&tlast those of se#&lar regi+es. he for+ of salvational enterprise *oi#a 0and his folloBers, espe#ially2 adopted Bas not, hoBever, a leis&rely one, a+ong its salient feat&res Bas an &rgent, al+ost apo#alypti#, sense, Bhi#h the i+agery of salvation played an i+portant role in s&staining. Like +any other !o+anian intelle#t&als, *oi#a-s folloBers so&ght to +obiliIe p&bli# attention by #ontin&ally invoking the &rgen#y of the task at hand. "ro+ the prefa#e to Ples&-s book on ethi#s, he reader Bill note a #ertain disproportion betBeen the s#ope ot the proble+s atta#ked and their la#oni#, if not indeed brisk, treat+ent. Eritten Bith a #on% stant sense of &rgen#yX the te4t #ontin&ally ind&lges in s&ggestion and sket#h%in#ss . . . 0Ples& 1988, 9, original e+phases2. 3n another passage he again referred to @the &rgen#y of a preo##&pation Bith

ethi#s@ 0p. 752. Lii##an& often spoke of the present +o+ent as a @+o+ent of spirit&al &rgen#y@ 0e.g., 198;, 1$52. Dthers noted the sense of &rgen#y also, *oi#a proposes virt&ally that his dis#iples behave as if the Borld Bere abo&t to end, or is in any #ase irre+ediably #onde+ned, th&s all that #o&nts is to preserve Bisdo+ 0along Bith the Bise2 0Antolii and P#tr#s#& n.d., 192. "ro+ the opposing side, a proto#hronist Neered at the @alar+ist tone@ in Bhi#h Lii##an& Brote abo&t proto#lironis+ @as if lie Bere talking abo&t an invasion of lo#&sts@ 01or#s#& 1989, 92. he the+es of #&lt&re as salvation and &rgen#y #o+e together ni#ely in a passage fro+ another *oi#an, As 3 &nderstand it, ifthe So&rnal s&##eeded in tro&bling people-s spirits, this Bas not be#a&se thro&gh it they finally had the revelation of C&lt&re b&t only to the e4tent that, in a +o+ent #riti#al for Life, they had the revelation of #&lt&re as lifeX or, perhaps +ore e4a#tly, of a life that #an be saved thro&gh #&lt&re lived Bith a&thenti#ity and desperation 0)leining#r in Lii#ean& 198;, 1652. he <&estion of &rgen#y appeared fre<&ently eno&gh in print b&t even +ore often in dire#t en#o&nters. 3n inn&+erable #onversations !o+anian intelle#t&als of very diverse pers&asions pressed &pon +e and others present the &rgen#y of their +ission to s&pport @tr&e@ #&lt&re or to resist the in#&rsions of poBer into the #&lt&ral sphere. hey spoke of the @desperation@ Bith Bhi#h s+all #o&ntries seek to define a pla#e for @1CHDDL@ D" PH3LD1DPHE! CD*1 A* 3* *D3CA 681 the+selves in the BorldL of the sense of having no ti+e to Baste, no pla#e or sit&ation in Bhi#h they felt se#&reL of their e4isten#e as an @e4perien#e at the li+it,@ needing Bild atta#h+ent to the last val&es Borth str&ggling forL of the dread that they Bo&ld fail to develop fast eno&gh the #&lt&ral val&es to Bhi#h they adhered so passionately. heir intensity of e4pression and depth of feeling Bere re+arkable. 1o+e intelle#t&als even #o++ented &pon this &rgen#y as so+ething pe#&liar, one *oi#an asked +e Bhether 3 kneB of +ove+ents of si+ilar @#&lt&ral desperation@ 0his Bords2 elseBhere in Eastern E&rope or Bhether it Bas pe#&liar to !o+ania. Ee +ight se# this sense of &rgen#y, in the +anner of !o&rdi#& and si+ilar analysts, as a strategy by Bhi#h a #ertain gro&p of intelle#t&als enhan#es its #lai+s to p&bli# attention and stat&s. Pro+oting a sense of &rgen#y Bo&ld speed &p the pro#ess of redefining a +arginal sit&ation Bithin one-s field or of repositioning one-s +arginal field itself, #loser to the #enter. >yg+&nt Ba&+an offers an interpretation of this sort. He identifies intelle#t&als as a str&#t&ral #le+ent in so#ieties Bhose individ&al +e+bers s&ffer fro+ a so#ially prod&#ed @in#apa#ity@ to #ond&#t their life b&siness on their oBn. his +akes people dependent on the advi#e or assistan#e of others/intelle#t&als, e4perts, and so forth/ Bho thereby do+inate the+, W Vh# intensity and s#ope of their do+ination depends on hoB a#&te is the sense ot &n#ertainty or deprivation #a&sed by the absen#e of knoBledge in an area servi#ed by a given gro&p ot sages, tea#hers or e4perts. =ore i+portantly still, it depends on the latter-s ability to #reate or intensity s&#h a sense of &n#ertainty or deprivationL to prod&#e, in other Bords, the so#ial indisp#nsability of die kind of knoBledge they #ontrol 0!a&+an ^91;h, 652. Dn this interpretation, the &rgen#y e4pressed by *oi#a-s folloBers and other intelle#t&als Bo&ld enable the+ to intensify their #lai+s to do+ination, based

on their parti#&lar e4pertise and #o+peten#e, notions abo&t salvation and &rgen#y Bere vehi#les for pro+oting their oBn indisp#nsability. he religio&s overtones of the idea of salvation, Ba&+an +ight arg&e, give these philosophers so+ething #lose to "o&#a&lt-s @pastoral poBer@/that is, #lai+s to elite stat&s based on <&alities e4er#ised @for the benefit@ of the do+inated 0Ba&+an 198;Y, 192. Altho&gh these interpretations do&btless #ontain +&#h tr&th, anyone Bho has ever had a strong feeling is going to find the+ ins&ffi#ient. Any analysis that ai+s to @&n+ask@ s&rfa#e +anifestations 0feelings, ideologi#al e4pressions, defense +e#hanis+s2 by e4ploring the +otive for#es &nderlying the+ sho&ld also atte+pt to tie those &nderlying +o% 686 @1CHDDL@ D" PH3LD1DPHE! CD*1 A* 3* *D3CA rive for#es to the parti#&lars of the s&rfa#e for+s. "ro+ a so#iologi#al point of vieB, one o&ght at least to spe#ify hoB these @strategi#s,@ <&a properties of the #&lt&ral field, be#o+e translated into passionate #onvi#tion. 3 Bill arg&e here that &nlike #&lt&ral prod&#ers in the Eest, Bho often present an i+age of disinterest fro+ the politi#al and e#ono+i# s&pports of their #&lt&ral prestige 0Bo&rdi#& 1985, 6:62 and Bho+ Bo&rdi#& sees as +isreBgniIing the link betBeen these, !o+anian intelle#t&als #&ltivating &rgen#y Bere rendering in f&lly re#ogniIed for+ a f&nda+ental #hara#teristi# of their sit&ation in #onte+porary !o+ania.67 3n general ter+s, a #l&ster of linked e+otions, in#l&ding a sense of &rgen#y and a related sense of an4iety, Bas #onstit&ted by the Borkings of !o+ania-s #o++and e#ono+y. he intensity of shortage, ende+i# to !o+ania-s highly #entraliIed for+ of so#ialis+ and aggravated by 1985s a&sterity poli#ies, prod&#ed #ontin&al &n#ertainty as to Bhether and Bhere the basi# ne#essities of daily life #o&ld be obtained. A&g+enting this Bere the #o&ntless Bays in Bhi#h the politi#al #enter e4propriated the pop&la#e of its initiative and #ontrol over the re<&ire+ents for e4isten#e. "&rther an4iety and &n#ertainty #a+e fro+ the a#t&al or pres&+ed Borkings of the repressive apparat&s, above all the se#ret poli#e, Bhi#h Bas believed o+nipresent. Here Be see poBer as a @prod&#tive@ for#e, in "o&#a&lt-s sense, the prod&#ts being a #ertain kind of e+otion and the e4perien#e of in#apa#ity and dependen#y Ba&+an speaks of. 3n a daily e4perien#e shot thro&gh Bith e4ternally ind&#ed &n#ertainty and an4iety, s&bNe#tive feelings of desperation and &rgen#y Bere not s&rprising. o #o++&ni#ate a sense of &rgen#y abo&t one-s proNe#t for saving !o+anian #&lt&re Bas, &nder these #ir#&+stan#es, si+ply the intelle#t&als- Bay of transposing into the sphere ot their Bork the tensions that per+eated their entire <&otidian e4isten#e.69 3t +ade heightened #lai+s for the one area in Bhi#h they telt effi#a#io&s. =ore spe#ifi#ally, #ertain properties of the field of #&lt&ral prod&#tion +eshed Bith these general tenden#ies. Ba&+an, defining intelle#t&als as a @spot@ or @territory@ @inhabited by a shifting pop&lation, and open to invasions, #on<&ests and legal #lai+s as all ordinary territories are@ 0198;Y, 192, arg&es that a #hara#teristi# of the +odern Borld is the invasion of this territory and the erosion of intelle#t&als- #lai+s to e4pert stat&s. As the +arket in#reasingly be#o+es the +ain site for N&dg+ents, for a&thority, and for for+ing tastes, politi#s no longer re<&ire the @legislating@ f&n#tions of intelle#t&als 0ibid., 1$9, 1:82. 3n !o+ania

@1CHDDL@ D" PH3LD1DPHE! CD*1 A* 3* *D3CA 687 of the 1985s, the @spot@ of intelle#t&als Bas also &nder siege/not be#a&se the +arket had +ade intelle#t&al prod&#tion irrelevant, as Ba&+an arg&es for the Eest, b&t be#a&se a portion of e4pertise had been instit&tionaliIed in the for+ of Party r&le, Bhi#h assi+ilated other intelle#t&al platfor+s. By red&#ing the spheres of &n#ertainty that a #&lt&ral intelligentsia #o&ld pla&sibly #lai+ to @+anage@/even Bhile in#reasing the sphere of &n#ertainty itself/and by +aking Party%#ontrolled e4perts and planners the only people Bith any hope of +anaging &n#ertainty effe#tively, the Party prod&#ed a #risis for intelle#t&als. he leadership-s vog&e for national ideology enabled those ofproto#hronist pers&asion 0Bhose s&##ess Bas also, for the+, an &rgent +atter2 to invade and se#&re territories for+erly in other hands, in#reasing the sense of desperation of people threatened Bith @evi#tion@ fro+ their spa#e. 3n a Bord, the terrain of intelle#t&als Bas grad&ally being bro&ght &nder the disposition and #ontrol of the politi#al apparat&s and into the @#orporate property@ that #ontained all the so#iety-s +eans of prod&#tion. Eithin this #orporate property there Bas little roo+ for individ&al #reation, individ&al sy+boli# a##&+&lation, s&#h as those the *oi#ans favored. heir desperation and sense of &rgen#y Bere s&ited to a fight that Bas, and Bas per#eived as, &ne<&al. 3ts stakes Bere not N&st one or another #erebral spe#ialty b&t people-s so&r#es of livelihood, and it str&#k at that point so &nderesti+ated in analyses of obNe#tively lo#ated strategi#s, ta#ti#s, and interests, 6$ people-s @interest@ in a +eaningf&l life. Perhaps the *oi#ans e4pressed this &rgen#y +ore intensely than others be#a&se their definition of philosophy and their #&lt&ral proNe#t Bere relatively +ore +arginal than others Bithin the intelle#t&al @spot@/+ore instit&tionally +arginal than Briters, for instan#e, and +ore sy+boli#ally and theoreti#ally +arginal than history. B&t all fields shared in the sa+e reorganiIation of territory that threatened to render #ertain for+s of intelle#t&al a#tivity +eaningless or none4istent and their proponents s&perfl&o&s. hese #o++ents on salvation and &rgen#y ar# +eant to fill o&t the otherBise% s#raBny notions of @interest@ and @strategy@ Bhi#h Bo&ld red&#e all intelle#t&al a#tivity to a for+ of s#he+ing. 3n +y vieB, one%+&st in#l&de in the @strategi#s@ proper to the #&lt&ral field so+e +ention of the te4t&res of e4perien#e Bithin it /te4t&res that sho&ld be analyIed in relation to the kind of so#iety in Bhi#h a#tion is o##&rring, rather than si+ply elided Bithin a +odel of @+arkets for sy+boli# goods.@6: his #riti#is+ is not to deny, hoBever, that the *oi#ans+essages of salvation and &rgen#y Bere also part of a larger str&ggle for 689 @1CHDDL@ 5( 1-H3LD1DPH!! CD*1 A* 3* *D3CA poBer, being Baged thro&gh arg&+ents abo&t the nat&re of philosophy and the s&itability of vario&s pretenders to its throne. 3t Bas a str&ggle to bring a greater share of #entral reso&r#es into the servi#e of a parti#&lar set of intelle#t&al val&es. 3n the #ase of *oi#a-s 1#hool, the val&es so &rgently defended Bere both a parti#&lar kind of e4pertise/a spe#ifi# definition of philosophy/and also the +ore general terrain of a #&lt&ral prod&#tion relatively free of partinost and indig#nist #ontent, and openly oriented to E&rope.

(/)(/S/NT+T#?/N/SS +N$ T./ )(OC/SS O0 C31T3(+1 (/)(O$3CT#ON

Dne final #le+ent of the str&ggle for r#pr#s#ntativ#n#ss, the #lai+s +ade for *oi#a-s @paid#i# +odel,@ Bill lead &s into the +ore #onventionally politi#al i+pli#ations of *oi#a-s 1#hool.6; Both in its s&btitle 0A Paidei# =odel in H&+anist C&lt&re2 and in its prefa#e, Lii%##an&-s So&rnal anno&n#ed that it intended to offer a +odel of #&lt&ral training that Bas -d-de4e+plary.@ 1&#h Bording +akes this #lai+ the heavy artillery of a battle as to Bhose definition best represents #&lt&re. he stakes behind s&#h an assertion, hoBever, Bere so+eBhat different fro+ those #overed so far, or fro+ the ones dis#&ssed in #hapter $ 0a str&ggle to set the #riteria for eval&ating and disse+inating literary Borks2. o speak of a @paidei# +odel@ Bas to la&n#h the very to&#hy s&bNe#t of #&lt&ral reprod&#tion, Bho Bo&ld #ontrol the pro#esses by Bhi#h #&lt&re is trans+itted to the ne4t generation, and in Bhat instit&tions Bo&ld this o##&r. he *oi#an #lai+ to define @#&lt&re@ noB entailed a progra+ not N&st for prod&#ing and distrib&ting it b&t for +onopoliIing or dire#ting its reprod&#tion thro&gh ti+e. h&s, Bhat Bas #hiefly a +atter of #ontested valorifi#ation of #&lt&re in the #ase of literary #riti#is+ be#o+es a +atter of #ontested reprod&#tion of #&lt&re in *oi#a-s #ase, Bo&ld reprod&#tion take pla#e Bithin or o&tside the instan#es that Bere offi#ially a&thoriIedK ied to this Bas a +aNor #le+ent of *oi#a-s #&lt&ral #a+paign, not yet +entioned, his sear#h for tBenty%tBo geni&ses. He des#ribed it to Lii##an& as folloBs, 3 have often been asked to #onvin#e Eliade to ret&rn for a visit. he idea then #a+e to +e to tell those Bho +ade tills re<&est that Be don-t need to bring Eliade ba#k, be#a&se in fa#t Be have hi+ here already, and not N&st one of hi+ b&t tBenty%tBo ti+es over. 3f there ar# 66 +illion !o+anians today, then one yo&ng person in a +illion probably has geni&s. B&t for these tBenty%tBo ge% ni&ses Be +&st have trainers 0Liieean& 1987, 1;62. @1CHDDL@ D" PH3LD1DPHE! CD*1 A* 3* *D3CA 68$ Proposing hi+self as trainer, *oi#a pro#eeded to kno#k on the doors of lo#al a&thorities, asking that gifted yo&ng people be e+ployed for a ti+e in fi#tive Nobs the Bay top athletes Bere, so as to perfe#t their #apa#ity for #&lt&ral perfor+an#e. his <&est #onstit&ted *oi#a-s +ost dire#t assa&lt on the for+al #hannels of #&lt&ral trans+ission. he @paid#i# +odel@ Bas the only aspe#t of *oi#a-s progra+ to Bhi#h his e4ternal ad+irers took e4#eption. hey strove to pin it on his folloBers by saying that *oi#a had intended to +ake #&lt&re a##essible to a Bider a&dien#e b&t the dis#iples had perverted this into a paid#ia that Bas @elitist.@ Challenges to *oi#a-s paid#i# e4a+ple asked Bhat, if anything, in the dis#iples- e4perien#e #o&ld be #onsidered e4e+plary 0#.g, Feana 198:, 9:2 or rep&diated the idea that anything @paid#i#@ had in fa#t o##&rred, U*oi#aV +editates and behaves like a philosopher 0. refer to his Britings2X b&t V Liieean& behavesV &nphilosophi#ally. . . . Liieean& +issed the lesson that he #o&ld have learned fro+ *oi#a . . . , die lesson of diale#ti#s. he relation of tea#her and dis#iple Bo&ld then liav# N&stified itself. 1&#h a relation is not present here@ 01tro# 1989, e+phases added2. he first senten#e of this #o++ent reveals one of the +ost fre<&ent devi#es for #hallenging the @paidei# +odel@, a rhetori#al separation of *oi#a-s

personllife fro+ his Borki Britings. Liieean& and Ples& in parti#&lar, a+ong *oi#a-s folloBers, insisted that *oi#a-s e4isten#e, his person and his biography, Bere +ore i+portant than the #ontent of his Bork. !e+inding readers, for e4a+ple, that *oi#a had denied the i+portan#e of his biography, Bhi#h Bas red&#ible to his books, Ples& #o++ents, U Nhose Bho believe this/and *oi#a in the first pla#e/are +istaken. . . . Cir% #&+stan#es in today-s !o+ania are s&#h that Bhat #o&nts is not *oi#a-s op&s b&t +ore i+portantly his si+ple e4isten#e. His @role@ is +ore signifi#ant than his @philosophy.@ 3t +ight event&ally e+erge that his Bhole spe#&lative apparat&s, Bith his !o+anian ety+ologies . . . Bill prove of se#ondary or stri#tly @histori#al@ i+portan#e, #o+pared Bith die +e+ory of his presen#e, sal&tary for several generations of !o+anian intell##+als trapped by the #onse<&en#es of a tragi# for+ative void. . . . Ehat is e4e+plary is pre#isely *oi#a-s 3noffraphy. His op&s is +erely i+portant ill a #ertain a#ade+i# sense 0198$, $, original e+phases2. Ehat Ples& &nders#ores is the e4perien#e of #&lt&ral trans+ission that *oi#a offered his folloBers, an e4perien#e they play &p by p&rposely doBngrading his Bork, Bith its @!o+anian ety+ologies.@ he e+phases of their opponents Bere, of #o&rse, pre#isely the reverse, he padi toBard *oi#a-s tho&ght do#s not go to PaltiniLL Uthe lo#ation of the paid#i# e4perien#e/k.v.V b&t thro&gh his ivritings. o go to Paltinis is only to 68: @1CHDDL@ D" PH3LD1DPHE! CD*1 A* 3* *D3CA be#o+e +ired in the ane#dotal and the a##idental. he tr&e path is rather the path of die #on#ept in its diale#ti#al p&rity. . . . his So&rnal has not #onvin#ed &s that there o##&rred in Paltinis an en#o&nter betBeen tea#her and dis#iple 01troe 19892. Here 1troe <&estions the personaliIed +odel for trans+itting #&lt&re, so &nlike the for+s of p&bli# ed&#ation. By p&tting *oi#a-s biography in parentheses, he also s&ppresses *oi#a-s fas#ist past, e+barrassing to the position #riti#s like hi+ had staked o&t on the ideologi#al terrain. "or these people, it Bas the national #ontent of *oi#a-s Britings that #o&nted +ost. 1&#h reservations #on#erning *oi#a-s paideia en#o&rage o&r s&spi#ion that these #riti#s Bere speaking fro+ a position #lose to the politi#al apparat&s and in defense of its +eans. 'espite *oi#a-s ref&sal to distan#e hi+self verbally fro+ poBer, at the level of pra#ti#es his paideia Bas &tterly opposed to the regi+e of pra#ti#es i+ple+ented by the a&thorities. he antithesis Bas not N&st in the obvio&s fa#t of his pro+oting #&lt&ral val&es and gro&nds of #&lt&ral a##&+&lation at odds Bith offi#ial definitions 0Bestern @i+ports@ and so forth2. *or Bas it N&st in his effort to foster thinking and the #apa#ity for independent tho&ght, instead of rote +e+oriIation and +e#hani#al repetition, or a @standard of living@ defined in spirit&al rather than +aterial ter+s. *oi#a-s @1#hool@/his Bay of trans+itting #&lt&ral val&es/instit&ted a Bholly different relation of a&thority, an antihi#rar#hi#al distrib&tion of speaking and listening roles, individ&aliIed rather than +ass pro#essing of st&dents, a s&bNe#tion to a&thority that Bas vol&ntary rather than enfor#ed.68 Dne revieBer observed that a+ong the +ost striking feat&res of Letters Bas its pi#a for love as part of a&thority 0Br#ban 1988, :62. his @s#hool@ #ontained none of the panoply of poBer%serving dis#iplinary pro#ed&res that "o&#a&lt has revealed in the #onventional +edi&+ of

ed&#ation. 3nstead of the dis#ipline of a s+all #lassroo+ arranged in a grid, in Bhi#h the body of the p&pil a##&sto+s itself to ho&rs of obedient and do#ile i++obility, the pra#ti#es of *oi#a-s @s#hool@ Bere open and peripateti#. =entor and dis#iple +oved freely betBeen the &ndif"#rentiated spa#e of *oi#a-s roo+ and the hills o&tsideL #li+bing the slopes Bas the body-s a##o+pani+ent to the +ind-s as#ent into tho&ght. *oi#a pro+oted a @ret&rn to #&lt&re@ that Bas to @the #&lt&re of Ada+, pre#eding the fall into the sin of a #&lt&re that has been offi#ialiIed and instit&tionaliIed. B&t to a#hieve this ... he had to reinvent 1o#ratis+ and +ake it live again@ 0Lii##an& 1987, 67$2. hese very #hara#teristi#s of his paideia bore fr&it in the #areers of those Bho Bere @s&bNe#ted@ to it, as the folloBing se#tion Bill shoB. @1CHDDL@ D" PH3LD1DPHE! CD*1 A* 3* *D3CA 68;

0rom Cu"tura" Creation to )o"itica" +ction

'&ring yesterday-s Balk, Fabi asked +e tBo inappropriate <&estions. he first, in Bhat does philosophy-s effi#a#y #onsistK he philosopher p&ts die Borld in order, he says, . . . b&t die Borld pays no attention. he se#ond, perhaps +ore inappropriate, given die transien#e of this Borld, to Bhat end all o&r striv%ingsK . . . @HoB does philosophy enter into the Borld,@ is Bhat Fabi is asking +e 0*oi#a, in Lii#ean& 1987, 1882. he #ontest over representativeness betBeen the *oi#a 1#hool and other kinds of philosophy or #&lt&ral val&es Bas only one for+ of the politi#s in Bhi#h *oi#a and his folloBers engaged. Dther for+s involved heated and +ore or less e4pli#it arg&+ents a+ong the+selves, abo&t the relation #&lt&re o&ght to have to poBer, abo&t their oBn a#tivities as intelle#t&als in relation to the state. hese arg&+ents divided parti#ipants Bho Bo&ld otherBise find the+selves on a single side of #&lt&ral arg&+ents/that is, they #o+pli#ate the lines of for#e that e+erged in #hapter $. Antiproto#hronists Bere by no +eans s<&arely lined &p behind Lii#ean& 0see, e.g., revieBs by 'in#s#& 198:L 'oinas 1989L lorg&les#& 198;L =arino 198;L Papahagi 198;L 1i+ion 19872, nor Bere all *oi#a-s folloBers of one +ind. heir disagree+ents #entered &pon tBo the+es that Bere linked to one another, Bhat intelle#t&al dis#iplines best pro+ote !o+anian #&lt&re 0the #lai+s of philosophy and literary #riti#is+ are Beighed against one another2, and hoB sho&ld #lai+s to #&lt&ral representativeness be tied to #onsiderations of ethi#s or +orality. he <&estions Bere linked be#a&se positions on the se#ond one be#a+e signifi#ant in adN&di#ating the first, and be#a&se both Bere a #over &nder Bhi#h the parti#ipants developed a strategy for an intelle#t&al opposition to poBer.

3N#02#N* T./ 0#/1$ O0 O))OS#T#ON8 ).#1OSO).25 1#T/(+(2 C(#T#C#SM5 +N$ /T.#CS

A+ong the debatable vieBs *oi#a e4pressed in the So&rnal Bas his insisten#e that philosophy is the only tr&e g&ardian of #&lt&ral #reation and that all other areas of intelle#t&al life sho&ld a#knoBledge its pree+inen#e. He addressed this vieB parti#&larly to Briters and literary #riti#s. Altho&gh nearly all of *oi#a-s #lose asso#iates and +ost revieBers of. the. So&rnal took strong e4#eption to his @philosophi#al i+pe% 688 @1CHDDL@ D" PH3LD1DPHE! CD*1 A* 3* *D3CA

rialis+@ and intoleran#e, Lii##an& #&ntini%i#d to defend it &ntil late in the e4#hanges of Letters, for Bhi#h dis#&ssion of this proble+ for+ed the intelle#t&al ba#kbone.69 "ro+ =arga-s s&++ary of *oi#a-s Bork, it appears likely that *oi#a-s +otives for pla#ing philosophy above literary #riti#is+ Bere +&#h +ore #o+pli#ated than +ost parti#ipants realiIed. 3n s&bordinating @N&dg+ents@ 0the sphere of #riti#is+2 to @reason@ and @#on#epts@ 0the sphere of philosophy2, he Bas preparing his +ore general #riti#is+ of +ode+ rationality. *oi#a &nderstood, Bith )ant, that any syste+ of N&dg+ents e+anates fro+ a parti#&lar +odel of reasonL if one ai+s to redress the proble+s of +odernity by revising the +odel of reason &nderlying those proble+s, this i+plies a #onse<&ent revision in the syste+ of N&dg+ents as Bell. 7@ Philosophy is therefore the +ost f&nda+ental endeavor be#a&se it is the only one addressing f&nda+ental <&estions abo&t the very nat&re of +an in the Borld. Dn this reading, *oi#a hoped to +ove entirely o&tside the #onstraints of the proto%#hronis+ debate, for e4a+ple/ #on#erning Bho is e+poBered to define val&es/by #alling into <&estion the entire gro&nd on Bhi#h s&#h a debate Bas pre+ised. his, in +y vieB 0se# #hapter :2, is the only +ove that pro+ises to transfor+ ideologi#al dis#o&rse. he dis#&ssion never attained s&#h lofty heights, for +ost revieBers t&rned it into a sort of t&rf Bar in a loB%level str&ggle for #&lt&ral repr#%s#ntativ#ness and for @+odeling the so&ls of the yo&ng@ 0Lii#ean& 198;, 1$52, as people arg&ed over Bhi#h kind of endeavor, philosophy or literary #riti#is+ and artisti# #reation, had #ontrib&ted +ore to !o+anian #&lt&re and offered the pre#onditions for the other. 0"or e4a+ple, one revieBer #ontended that Bitho&t the re%editions of earlier philosophy literary #riti#s had pioneered in the 19$5s, philosophy Bo&ld have had no pla#e to Bork, not philosophy b&t literat&re #leared the #&lt&ral arena of dog+atis+ and so#ialist realis+, enabling real #&lt&ral #reation to re#o++en#e in all fields UPapahagi 198;12. People de+anded hoB Lii#ean& and *oi#a #o&ld envision a #&lt&re that e4#l&ded the arts 0'oinas 19892, a##&sed *oi#a of @i+perialis+@ and @#&lt&ral hooliganis+@ 0se# Lii#ean& 198;, 19:,1982,7- and de#lared o&tright that it Bas pre#isely *oi#a-s intolerant reNe#tion of the validity of fields other than philosophy that had driven the+ o&t of his i++ediate orbit 0Pal%#olog& 1985, and in Lii##an& 198;, 892. he dis#&ssion +ay have beg&n as one ofr#pr#sentativ#n#ss, b&t as it Bas refined in the #o&rse of latters, it #a+e to be also abo&t Bhat instit&tional fra+eBork is +ore s&ited to prote#ting #&lt&ral val&es. his @1CHDDL@ D" PH3LD1DPHE! CD*1 A* 3* *D3CA 689 is espe#ially apparent in an e4#hange betBeen Lii##an& and 1orin (ier& 0Lii#ean& 198;, 178%1812, Bhere Lii##an& +akes it #lear that the <&estion is not #hiefly an abstra#t one #on#erning @rights@ to represent #&lt&re 0Bhat he #alled s&pre+a#y in prin#iple^ b&t the a#t&al, #on#rete sit&ation of different kinds of #&lt&ral a#tivity Bithin !o+anian politi#al life 0histori#al s&pre+a#y2. Be#a&se the postBar s&ppression of all b&t +aterialist philosophy left literati no interlo#&tors in the Borld of theory, he says, the e+pty spa#e Bas filled by theoreti#ally &ninfor+ed #riti#is+. Criti#s Bho si+ply do not bloB Bhat they ar# doing #o++ent on books indis#ri+inately, regardless of their <&alifi#ations, and total ignora+&ses feel entitled to assess Borks like *oi#a-s, for Bhi#h they have nothing approa#hing the proper #o+peten#e 0a referen#e to proto#hronist

#o++entators2 0198;, 19;%198, 1;5%1;62.76 Lii##an& i+plies, f&rther+ore, that oBing to its politi#iIation, #riti#is+ no longer a#t&ally assesses val&e, having been red&#ed to @delight in poBer. Here is born the tyranny of the ad+inistrative in the +odern Borld@ 0198;, 1;92. Ehat Lii##an& appears to be saying is that to grant literary #riti#is+ e<&al stat&s Bith philosophy in the present +o+ent Bo&ld be to #o&rt disaster. Altho&gh allies of the *oi#a 1#hool +ay still Beigh heavily Bithin the EritersUnion, the offensive of its ene+ies into the very #orridors of poBer +eans that this #annot be pres&+ed to last, the entire do+ain of literary prod&#tion +ay Bell be#o+e the playing field ofpro%to#hronis+. Dne +&st not, &nder these #ir#&+stan#es, +ake an arg&+ent in prin#iple for the e<&ivalen#e of philosophy and literary #riti#is+ in deter+ining Bhat #&lt&ral val&es sho&ld be pro+oted and Bhat sho&ld be killed. 3t is al+ost as if Lii#ean& is arg&ing that only a de#en%tering, a +arginaliIation, of #&lt&ral prod&#tion #an preserve @tr&e@ val&es inta#t. A strongly instit&tionaliIed field like literat&re +ay be 0in the Brong hands2 a +ore dangero&s site for deter+ining #&lt&ral val&es than a +arginal field s&#h as the @dethroned@ philosophy of the 1985s, and parti#&larly *oi#a-s +arginaliIed version of #&lt&ral trans+ission and standards for val&e. 0Ee +ight note that s&#h an arg&+ent a##ords Bith Lii##an&-s not having, hi+self, a strong instit&tional position to defend.2 All the eviden#e in the str&#t&re of Letters, hoBever, s&ggests that Lii#ean& Bas alone in &pholding this strategy for prote#ting the val&es he espo&sed/ val&es that o&r analysis +&st #ontin&e to regard as s&bNe#tive N&dg+ents a+ong a larger range of possible N&dg+ents, none of Bhi#h sho&ld be analyti#ally #onsidered @tr&e.@ As their dis#&ssion of a 695 @1CHDDL@ D" PH3LD1DPHE! CD*1 A* 3* *D3CA #&lt&ral%politi#al strategy pro#eeded, Bhat prevailed instead Bas a pi#a for pl&ralis+X voi#ed by several of the +ost elo<&ent letter%Briters in Lii##an&-s #olle#tion. hey arg&ed that hierar#hiIations like *oi#a-s, together Bith all dis#iplinary divisions, sho&ld be dropped and the validity of all @gen&ine@ #&lt&ral val&es re#ogniIed and defended/in other Bords, that the politi#al assa&lt &pon @gen&ine@ val&es re<&ired all persons s&pporting the+ to #lose ranks by a#knoBledging and a##epting diverse spe#ialiIations. his in t&rn Bo&ld +ean #ons#io&sly ref&sing provo#ations over r#pr#sentativen#ss Bithin and betBeen dis#iplines, so as to fo#&s on the larger str&ggle to defend the Borthiest val&es for #&lt&re as a Bhole. o overdo a +etaphor, these prod&#ers arg&ed to pool their #apitals so as to respond +ore effe#tively to the #on#entrated poBer that defined their prod&#tive environ+ent. =y dis#&ssion states the iss&es too baldly, perhaps, and does not render the+ in <&ite the ter+s &sed by the parti#ipants. 3n addition, the pl&ralist strategy e+erged as +&#h thro&gh the str&#t&re of Letters and the se<&en#e of its e4#hanges as thro&gh o&tright state+ent. 77 *onetheless, #onversations Bith other intelle#t&als inside and o&tside philosophy, on topi#s &nrelated to the *oi#a 1#hool, #onvin#e +e that any arg&+ent for pl&ralis+ Bas #ons#io&sly intended as a politi#al +eans for opposing #entraliIation. o advo#ate pl&ralis+, Bhether in a highly obs#&re theory of the nat&re of the Absol&te or in a re+inis#en#e betBeen a philosopher and a poet, Bas to &nify the field of opposition to poBer. Arg&+ents for pl&ralis+ Bere one Bay in Bhi#h this field Bas &nified. A se#ond

Bas to insist that #&lt&ral a#tion be ethi#ally or +orally +ediated. Ehat bro&ght the disp&tatio&s Letter%Briters together Bas their #o++on agree+ent /and #o++on opposition to *oi#a/on the prin#iple that #&lt&ral #reations are valid only in the light of +oral s#r&tiny. All insisted, that is, that @#reation in and of itself is not a +oral a#t,@ that @#&lt&re is not beyond good and evil@ 0En#s#& 198;2, that s&pre+a#y sho&ld be a##orded not N&st to Bhoever possesses &niversally re#ogniIed #&lt&ral a&thority b&t to Bhoever offers a +odel of p&bli# #ond&#t 0Fh#orghi& 1988\,$2. *oi#a-s p&bli# #ond&#t Bas to BithdreB fro+ p&bli# life. He #hided his folloBers for their &rge to defy Benda-s di#t&+ against for+ing a pa#t Bith the ti+es, for Banting to @#li+b doBn into the arena@ to str&ggle Bith earthly poBers rather than keeping their sights on the @3dea@ 0see Lii#ean& 1987, 651%65;2. Here is the signifi#an#e of the @separations@ so #entral to Lii#ean&-s tBo books, for it Bas pre#isely Bith *oi#a-s +odel of p&bli# #ond&#t that all his @1CHDDL@ D" PH3LD1DPHE! CD*1 A* 3* *D3CA 691 folloBers at length parted #o+pany, affir+ing that one #annot #lai+ to be a person of #&lt&re if one de#lines an ethi#ally +otivated engage+ent Bith poBer. o ref&se s&#h ethi#s, they said, is to align oneself Bith the for#es of r&le, Bhi#h is N&st Bhat *oi#a did Bith his !o+anian philosophy and his ref&sal of p&bli# distan#e fro+ proto#hronis+. Having separated fro+ *oi#a over the <&estion of engage+ent, his folloBers offered a neB +odel for linking #&lt&re Bith the defense of the *ation. Ehereas *oi#a-s e<&ation of #&lt&re Bith the *ation-s e4isten#e enabled hi+ to defend the *ation si+ply by thinking, his folloBers #a+e to defend it by #&lt&rally infor+ed politi#al a#tion. he arg&+ent Bas +ade in an essay by Ples&, @ he 1ense of C&lt&re in the Conte+porary Eorld,@ reprinted in his book =ini+a =oralia 019882. he book-s agenda is to dis#&ss hoB one #an s&rvive de#ently in the gap betBeen +oral &n#larity and edifi#ation, Bhi#h 3 interpret to +ean, hoB #an one +anage to live Bith oneself in the appalling #onditions of today-s !o+aniaK 3n<&iring into the pla#e of #&lt&re in s&#h a #ir#&+stan#e, Ples& ansBers, @C&lt&re is the +ost ade<&ate +odality of s&bsisting in the #onditions of that gap@ 01988, 1582, Bhi#h in the #onte4t of the book +eans that #&lt&re is the best <&alifi#ation for +aking +oral N&dg+ents. =oreover, #&lt&re in the absen#e of s&#h N&dg+ents is Borthless, By @Bisdo+@ Be do not +ean . . . Uso+ethingV beyond all Borldly e4igen#ies. Ee have in +ind that Bisdo+ Bhi#h a##epts the #ondition of the Borldly #o+% +&nity and of Bhi#h the #o++&nity has need, the Bisdo+ that Bants to radi% ate o&tBard not by its si+ple presen#e b&t thro&gh dis#o&rse and p&bli# a#tion 0Ples& 1988, 89%95, original e+phasis2. 3n #ase anyone has +issed the point, there is his book-s dedi#ation, @ o Constantin *oi#a. Had 3 not knoBn hi+, 3 #o&ld not have Britten this book. Had 3 listened to hi+, 3 Bo&ld not have Britten it.@ 3n opting for an ethi#s of engage+ent Bith the Borld rather than *oi#a-s professed distan#e fro+ it, *oi#a-s folloBers and others in #&lt&ral life reproa#hed hi+ for +any things, starting Bith his ref&sal to disoBn the &ses to Bhi#h proto#hronists Bere p&tting hi+ 0Lii#ean& 1987, 1792. hey obNe#ted to his naiv#t# in ignoring the #onditions of prod&#tion that so+e of his grander s#he+es re<&ired, #onditions that Bo&ld &lti+ately #o+pro+ise his ends. "or e4a+ple, in his <&est to find and train the @tBenty%tBo geni&ses,@ he pleaded

Bith politi#al a&thorities for s&pport, apparently &n+indf&l/or Borse, &n#aring /of the p&bli# legiti+ation they Bo&ld gain by asso#iation Bith his na+eL 696 @1CHDDL@ D" PH3LD1DPHE! CD*1 A* 3* *D3CA &n+indf&l, as Bell, of hoB a##epting p&bli# f&nds for his @elitist@ and potentially antisyste+i# proNe#t Bo&ld ne#essarily #o+pel #hanges in it. 0 he a&thorities Bere not so &n+indf&l, they +ostly ref&sed his re<&ests, availing the+selves only of his na+e.2 *oi#a alBays hoped to +eet Bith Cea&s#s#& and plead for his progra+ of intelle#t&al athleti#s, Bith no tho&ght for hoB that +ight look. He Bas also derided for i+agining that poBer Bo&ld be interested in his s#he+es at all, @Dne #annot e4pe#t to go -geni&s%h&nting- as if geni&s had no histori#ity and no #onte4t for its realiIation@ 0a#rban 19892. @'oesn-t he se# that football players are preferred to philosophers, and that his efforts, N&stifying the+selves thro&gh FeistX ar# +ade ridi#&lo&s by the >eitgeist( 0Antohi and Petr#s#& n.d., :2. 1o+e people a##&sed hi+ of Banting to fo&nd a @logo#ra#y@ every bit as #onfining as the #&rrent regi+e, of regretting that it Bas not his philosophy that had been dog+atiIed 0se# Lii#ean& 198;, 1:5% 1:92. Dne of the sharpest #riti#is+s labeled *oi#a-s dis#o&rse @totaliIing@ and observed that thinkers like "o&#a&lt and '#le&Ie se# s&#h dis#o&rses as adN&n#ts to poBer 0Antohi and P#tres#& n.d., 62. *oi#a +ade hi+self available, these #riti#s obNe#ted, as an apologist of poBer, a prestigio&s anne4 of the propaganda +a#hine, Bho #arried an a&thority essential to a de+agogi# leadership. His anne4ation Bas the +ore likely as he va#illated in his relations Bith poBer, be#a&se *oi#a saB the ethi#al i+pli#ations of #&lt&ral prod&#tion as se#ondary and failed to realiIe that the battle Bas &ne<&al, Bith poBer disposing of s&perior Beapons available &ni<&ely to it 0ibid., 7%92. Fiven the antisyste+i# i+pli#ations of *oi#a-s paid#ia and the other respe#ts in Bhi#h his Bork and a#tivities did not fit Bith the e+phases of r&le, one s&spe#ts that these reproa#hes over#onstr&#ted *oi#a-s relation to poBer. 3f so, the reason is probably that by defining the+selves against a #onstr&#ted i+age of politi#al disinterest, *oi#a-s asso#iates Bere #larifying their strategy, #reating a #&lt&ral resistan#e that Bas e4pli#it in pla#e of *oi#a-s i+pli#it one. Dvert eviden#e of s&#h e4pli#it resistan#e/eviden#e that this 1#hool, Bhi#h 3 #alled @+arginal@ in the introd&#tion to this #hapter as Bell as to this book, had #onse<&en#es for !o+anian so#iety greater than the i+pli#ations listed above /Bas to #o+e in =ar#h of 1989, Bhen poet =ir#ea 'in#s#& Bas throBn o&t of the Party and his Nob in the Eriters- Union for having given a #riti#al intervieB to a "ren#h neBspaper. 3n response, seven persons signed a p&bli# letter of protest to the president of the Union/an oppositional gest&re Bith very feB pre#edents in C#a&ses#&-s !o+ania. Bo of those @1CHDDL@ D" PH3LD1DPHE! CD*1 A* 3* *D3CA 697 seven 0Bho in#l&ded so+e other pro+inent antiproto#hronists2 Bere in Bhat 3 #all *oi#a-s 1#hool. heir signifi#an#e for the +ove+ent that overthreB Cea&s#s#&-s di#tatorship #an be ga&ged fro+ this book-s Con#l&sion. 3n departing fro+ *oi#a, his folloBers took a path of +ore dire#t #onfrontation Bith for+al a&thority, a path that originated in the ta#ti#s they Bere developing thro&gh the +edi&+ of Letters and their other Britings. hese Britings not only prod&#ed an allian#e a+ong #ertain philosophers and #ertain artists, #riti#s, and Briters 0the res&lt of Letters-2. hey not only instit&ted a neB

#o++&ni#ative style, one of @dire#tness@ and @sin#erity@ in pla#e of the hieratiIed stati# #o++&ni#ations of the a&thorities 0se# beloB2. hey not only parti#ipated in a Bider +ove+ent in Bhi#h pl&ralis+ Bas being philosophi#ally theoriIed in e4pli#it opposition to politi#al #entraliIation, and in Bhi#h treat+ents of ethi#s e+erged not fro+ a @ne&tral theoreti#al interest b&t fro+ all kinds of #ir#&+stan#es of daily life@ 0P3#s& 1988, ;2 0this state+ent prefa#es a te4t that treats +orality as *D a +atter of obedien#e and that at all points opposes its pretensions and its pre#epts to those prevalent in the offi#ial real+2. hey also engaged in a#tions then very rare in @passive@ !o+ania, a#tions the a&thorities felt #o+pelled to break &p.

NO#C#SM5 )O!/(5 +N$ T./ A3/ST#ON O0 +3$#/NC/

Altho&gh several *oi#ans a#knoBledged to +e in #onversation that the atte+pt to ins&late *oi#a fro+ +anip&lation by @the nationalists@ Bas a #ons#io&s ai+ for their Britings, Lii#ean&-s a##o&nt of his +otives in p&blishing his tBo books added three signifi#ant reasons to this. hey Bere, first, Bith the So&rnalX to p&bli#iIe *oi#a-s paid#i# +odelL se#ond, Bith LettersX to offer a different for+ of #o++&ni#ation, one of sin#erity and openness in Bhi#h @tr&ths@ ar# told 79 and feelings #learly e4pressed, in pla#e of the d&pli#ity and a+big&ity so #hara#teristi# of #o++&ni#ations in !o+aniaL and third, Bith respe#t to both books, an effort at pop&lariIation, at +aking philosophy and its iss&es a##essible to a Bider p&bli# and not si+ply an er&dite +atter for a feB spe#ialists. Using a so+eBhat +ore abstra#t lang&age brings o&t +ore f&lly the antisyste+i# #ontent of these three ai+s, to advo#ate a for+ of #&lt&ral reprod&#tion different fro+ the offi#ial one in both its instit&tions and its pra#ti#esL to s&bstit&te for a #o++&ni#ative style based 699 @1CHDDL@ D" PH3LD1DPHE! CD*1 A* 1* *D3CA &pon indire#tion and s&ppression one positing dire#tness and &n+askingL and to de+o#ratiIe e4pos&re both to philosophy and to a parti#&lar definition of #&lt&re. All three of these are part of Bhat 3 referred to in #hapter 9 as the for+ation of a #ogniIant p&bli#, that is, b&ilding an a&dien#e 0or +aintaining one already in e4isten#e2 that re#ogniIes and s&pports the definitions of val&e &pon Bhi#h the #&lt&ral stat&s of a given gro&p of intelle#t&als rests. *oi#a-s @paid#i# +odel,@ as already shoBn, e+ployed +e#hanis+s for reprod&#ing #&lt&re and val&es that Bere not those of the regi+e. he atte+pt at greater @dire#tness@ and @sin#erity@ Bo&ld e4pand the a&dien#e to Bho+ a #o++&ni#ation +ight be #o+prehensible, for as anyone knoBs Bho has tried to de#ipher a #o++&ni#ation in a#sopi# lang&age or spe#ialist Nargon, s&#h en#oded +essages pres&ppose a #o++&nity of shared knoBledge so esoteri# that nor+ally ed&#ated #ensors or readers do not re#ogniIe its signifi#an#e. Any retreat fro+ a#sopianis+ or spe#ialist Nargon opens a +essage to +ore hearers. At the sa+e ti+e, hoBever, to invoke @sin#erity@ as opposed to @d&% pli#ity@ pres&pposes a #ontra#t&al &nderstanding of #o++&ni#ation, in Bhi#h sender and hearer agree to a##ept the sender-s a##o&nt that his or her intentions ar# not de#eptive.7$ h&s, the sender lays #lai+ to so+eBhat +ore #ontrol over the reading, Bhi#h +ay help to fend off rival interpretations. "inally, the @de+o#ratiIing@ obNe#tive to Bhi#h Lii#ean& referred sho&ld not be #onf&sed/espe#ially in this #ase/Bith a deprofessionaliIation of the do+ain in

<&estionL rather, it Bo&ld in#rease the #han#e that the p&bli# Bo&ld knoB eno&gh to a#knoBledge a given #lai+ to professional #o+peten#e, granting their attention to that #lai+ in preferen#e to so+e other. he *oi#ans- #on#ern Bith enlarging the a&dien#e for #&lt&re, parti#&larly for philosophy, Bas apparent in +any a#tivities that they also shared Bith intelle#t&als in other fields. A good e4a+ple is the #ons#ientio&s/if +&#h obstr&#ted/effort to +ake available to !o+anian readers the i+portant Borks of Borld #&lt&re. *oi#a and his folloBers toiled aBay endlessly at translations of Plato, Heidegger, Hegel, and so on, N&st as others laborio&sly translated H&+#, Haber+as, Peir##, and Bo&rdie&, not to +ention 1hakespeare, =ar<&eI, E#o, and hosts of other foreign Briters. 03ndeed, several !o+anians Bho read parts of the present book obNe#ted that by fo#&sing on +arginal pheno+ena and spe#ifi# debates, 3 leave o&t the +ost #o++on a#tivities of +any intelle#t&als, translating, and Briting in their do+ains of e4pertise.2 Dne +ight see translations fro+ so#iology, philosophy, and so on, as the @1CHDDL@ D" PH3LD1DPHE! CD*1 A* 1* *D3CA 69$ i+port%based #reation of @+eans of prod&#tion@ for f&rther #&lt&ral Bork in !o+aniaL yet people spoke of translation as if the iss&e Bas, rather, to #reate +eans of #ons&+ption, to for+ p&bli# tastes 0generally in a pro%Bestern dire#tion2. Be#a&se any good professional learns the lang&ages ne#essary to #o+peten#e in a field 0*oi#a Bo&ld say2, those Bho benefit fro+ a translation are people o&tside the spe#ialty, or st&dents Bith a potential interest/in philosophy, say, Bho #an be Bon to it by en#o&ntering Plato-s or Heidegger-s tho&ght in a for+ other than the #anned version of &niversity te4tbooks. ranslations, therefore, Bere part of #reating a larger p&bli# for #&lt&re, a sort of raising of the spirit&al standard of living, parallel to the state-s #lai+s to raise the +aterial standard of living. At the sa+e ti+e, hoBever, they Bere like @vir&ses@ loosed into the +e#hanis+ by Bhi#h #&lt&re Bas offi#ially trans% +itted. hey Bere a for+ of politi#al a#tion. 0Perhaps here is another +otive for the proto#hronists- opposition to @i+ported te#hni<&es,@ Bhi#h Bo&ld disr&pt the pro#ess Bhereby their val&es Bere instit&ted.2 his Bas tr&e of any translation b&t parti#&larly tr&e of those in fields as #entral as philosophy Bas to legiti+ating the Co++&nist party. he *oi#ans- #on#ern Bith @raising the spirit&al standard of living@ re#eived its +ost elo<&ent for+&lation in Lii#ean&-s 198$ essay, @Philosophy and the "e+inine Paradig+ of the Listener.@ 7: A skilf&l effort to defend *oi#a against a##&sations fro+ vario&s <&arters and to ins&late hi+ against proto#hronis+, the essay separates *oi#a-s prono&n#e+ents fro+ his pra#ti#es and shoBs that, #ontrary to the @elitis+@ both friendly and hostile #riti#s saB in his prono&n#e+ents, his pra#ti#es Bere profo&ndly de+o#rati# and a##essible. *oi#a #lai+ed to be b&ilding a philosophy infor+ed by the syste+atiIing pretensions of +athe+ati#s, arg&es Lii#ean&, yet his pra#ti#e Bas #loser to literat&re. He hoped thro&gh tho&ght to order the Borld Ure#all the a##&sations ofto%talitana+s+ and logo#ra#yV, yet his pra#ti#e shoBed a nona&thoritarian Bay of radiating into the Borld thro&gh an inti+ate relation betBeen philosopher and listener, evident in his Bay of Briting. "inally, *oi#a professed to a##ept the Fer+an definition of philosophy-s proper goal 0e+phasiIing its s#ientifi# #hara#ter, via the notion of the #on#ept2, yet his pra#ti#e toBard this goal introd&#ed the innovation of an epi# prin#iple,

the idea that any tho&ght Borth p&rs&ing +&st be narratable. An e4#ellent e4a+ple of this Bas *oi#a-s interpretation of Hegel-s pheno+enology 0#alled 1tories abo&t =an^, Bhose #hapter headings rese+ble those of an epi# advent&re 0e.g., @ he Un&s&al A##idents of Cons#io&sness,@ @ he E4traordinary Advent&res of Arth&r Fordon 69: @1CHDDL@ D" PH3LD1DPHE! CD*1 A* 3* *D3CA Py+,@ @ he Carnival of (anities@2. 7; he effe#t of this shift Bas to reposition Hegel-s/or any other/philosophy fro+ the rostr&+ of the le#t&re hall to the firepla#e. h&s, says Lii##an&, *oi#a r#fra+ed the str&#t&res of spe#&lation by refor+&lating the+ in an epi# register. Lii##an& then pla#es this shift Bithin the Briting of philosophy beginning Bith Plato, Bhose dialog&e for+ differentiated +ini+ally betBeen the e4pertise of tea#her and st&dentL to Aristotle, Bho hi#rar#hiIed the relationL and on to Hegel, Bhose books @only Fod@ #o&ld &nderstand. Eith ea#h s&#h step, philosophy lost part of its a&dien#e. 3n s&#h a #onte4t, #lai+s Lii##an&, any +odifi#ation of the for+ in Bhi#h philosophy is #o++&ni#ated/parti#&larly any +odifi#ation in a literary dire#tion/Bill ne#essarily affe#t its a&dien#e Us&ddenly the re#on#iliation of philosophy and literary #riti#is+ in latters takes on neB signifi#an#eV. Any r#int#gration of philosophy Bith art reestablishes lost lines of #o++&ni#ation, restoring the possibility that philosophy +ight be per#eived not as an ar#ane spe#ialty b&t as so+ething that treats the proble+s of everyone. =&#h of *oi#a-s Briting addressed readers dire#tly, in a #ollo<&ial style/so+eti+es in the for+ of letters, &sing the se#ond person sing&lar 0see *oi#a 198:2 7-11/that bro&ght the+ into the te4t and presented its proble+s as their oBn. 79 Lii##an&-s oBn books Bere #onstr&#ted in a si+ilarly inviting Bay, breaking doBn the barriers betBeen a te4t and its readers to engage the+ in a dire#t +anner.9@ Here indeed Bas a style that e4panded its a&dien#e and t&rned its readers into parti#ipants. Ehy is this preo##&pation Bith the a&dien#e signifi#antK Partly, of #o&rse, for b&ilding the @#ogniIant p&bli#,@ Bhi#h Bo&ld re#ogniIe the a&thority and val&e of those Bho had b&ilt it and, perhaps, broaden the +arket for their books in the era of @-self%finan#ing.@91 he *oi#ans ai+ed to present as everyone-s #on#ern a set of val&es that Bere their parti#&lar #on#ern and to broaden the p&bli# that Bo&ld look to the+ for sol&tions. Ee +ight se# this as the ta#ti# of intelle#t&als Bhose position Bas being &nder+ined and for Bho+ it +ade +ore sense to aro&se Bide attention to the possibility of an irreparable loss than it did to #ontin&e thinking lofty tho&ghts in the presen#e of tBo or three others/ even 0as Lii##an& re#ogniIed 1198$, $912 at the risk that broadening the p&bli# Bo&ld dil&te the stri#tly philosophi#al #ontent of the +essage one #o&ld trans+it. here are tBo other fa#ets of Lii##an&-s 0and *oi#a-s2 @de+o#ratiIing@ i+p&lse, hoBever, that ar# +ore i+portant. Dne is that by prod&#ing a neB genre for philosophi#al Briting, the *oi#a 1#hool Bas i+ple% @1CHDDL@ D" PH3LD1DPHE! CD*1 A* 3* *D3CA 69; +#nting a strongly resistant pra#ti#e. Fenres, Fhani s&ggests, 96 ar# defined by the #hara#teristi# Bays in Bhi#h they bind lang&age, #reating parti#&lar for+s of #los&re for the reader. Any a#tivity that #hanges the genre proper to a s&bNe#t also #hallenges the kind of #los&re typi#al for that s&bNe#tL it therefore

holds the pro+ise of resistan#e, of opening neB possibilities that had been fore#losed. &rning philosophy into @stories,@ into a for+ of literat&re, b&rst the old #onfines set by the standard genres of philosophi#al Briting. his fa#t, and its i+pli#ations for the for+ation of a&dien#es, Bas parti#&larly signifi#ant given that the field in <&estion Bas philosophy. Altho&gh the lie fa#to legiti+ation of Party r&le +ay have shifted to nationalis+, its de N&re legiti+ation/and Bhat linked !o+anian so#ialis+ to the international so#ialist #o++&nity, Bitho&t Bhi#h the !o+anian Co++&nist Party Bo&ld not have attained and held onto poBer/still #a+e fro+ the offi#ialiIed version of =ar4ist%Leninist philosophy. *o so#ialist state #o&ld Bholly disoBn its heritage in the philosophi#al tradition fro+ Bhi#h the *oi#a 1#hool also derived, and fro+ Bhi#h it departed. Any gro&p of thinkers Bho #lai+ed des#ent fro+ the genealogy r&nning fro+ Plato thro&gh Hegel, Bhi#h Bas also the genealogy of =ar4 and Engels, and Bho res&s#itated serio&s #reative &se of that tradition 0s&#h as in Lii##an&-s efforts to theoriIe aneB the notion of @ne#essity@ so #entral to =ar4is+2, Bas a threat to the fo&ndations of Party r&le in a Bay that the antiproto#hronists or the histori#al resear#hes of a 'avid Prodan or an Ale4andr& >&b Bere not. 3ntrinsi# to =ar4-s heritage, for e4a+ple, ar# the dialog&es of Plato, Bhi#h *oi#a +anaged to p&blish. 97 hey in<&ire into the nat&re of the ideal so#iety, fro+ a position that regards the a#t&al so#iety of their day as not +eas&ring &p to that ideal. o this i+pli#it s&bversive pre+ise of Plato-s dialog&es/a #riti<&e of the for+s of the present/all potential !o+a% nian readers Bere already positively disposed. Dne had only to get their attention, to bring the+ into the a&dien#e. he possibility *oi#a-s 1#hool represented, then, Bas the possibility of a syste+ati# alternative &nderstanding/both theoreti#al and pra#ti#al/of the Borld, the +eans thro&gh Bhi#h both legiti+a#y 0for Eeber2 and hege+ony 0for Fra+s#i2 are threatened. As long as s&#h alternative visions e4isted, they #hallenged the neB hege+ony the Party so&ght to i+pose. he alternative &nderstandings Bo&ld not the+selves be s&ffi#ient for taking over the state, b&t they Bo&ld be a +aNor #ontrib&tion to the s&##ess of other for#es in so#iety Bho +ight +anage to #apt&re state poBer, *oi#a-s folloBers th&s ass&+ed the role/ 698 @1CHDDL@ D" PH3LD1DPHE! CD*1 A* 3* *D3CA theoriIed by L&ka#s, Fra+s#i, and others/of Borking Bithin the #onfines of the e4isting so#iety to broaden the visions available Bithin it. Altho&gh this role did not itself ai+ at politi#al +obiliIation, it +ight provide the bases for legiti+ating a #hange that so+e other +obiliIation Bo&ld bring into being. Perhaps this is the reason/Bhether #ons#io&sly re#ogniIed or not/ for a very pe#&liar feat&re of the proto#hronist re#eption of Letters. Pro%to#hronist #riti#s gave the book several nor+al revieBs, b&t in addition it Bas serialiIed virt&ally in its entirety in he Eeek, that #entral fortress of proto#hronis+, in the #ol&+n of the paper-s editor%in%#hief, E&gen Barb&. he serial began i++ediately folloBing *oi#a-s death 0first install+ent 'e#e+ber 11, 198;2, and its tone Bas at first friendly, noting the #orrespondents- fine Briting style, the book-s interest and e4e+plary organiIation, and so forth. "or +onths on end 0the serial lasted nearly a f&ll year 992, perhaps ;$ to 85 per#ent or +ore ofBarb&-s Beekly #ol&+n #onsisted of dire#t b&t sele#tive <&otations fro+ the letters. he brief #o++entary he interpolated fro+ ti+e to ti+e be#a+e +ore

sar#asti# as *oi#a-s death re#eded into the past. he Barb&%iIed Letters had several i+portant traits, all relevant to the <&estion of a&dien#e. 012 3ts sele#tive <&otations re+oved +&#h of the sense and nearly all of the intelle#t&al s&bstan#e fro+ the e4#hanges. 062 Barb&-s #o++ents dealt al+ost e4#l&sively Bith hoB #hildish, silly, hypo#riti#al, trivial, ignoble, and often o&tright ridi#&lo&s the parti#ipants Bere, hoB their p&n#t&ation left a lot to be desired, and hoB they <&arreled #onstantly a+ong the+selvesL the pivotal episode thro&gh Bhi#h philosophy and literary #riti#is+ Noined into a #o++on front Bas o+itted 0se# note 772, Bhi#h +eant that Barb&-s readers did not knoB abo&t the &nity of this @<&arrelso+e@ gro&p. 072 By serialiIing the book/stringing it o&t a feB paragraphs at a ti+e a#ross the spa#e of al+ost a year/Barb& eli+inated one of its +ost #o+pelling feat&res, its sense of &rgen#y and passionL that is, he disar+ed it of its +ost potent Beapon and the+ of a +aNor devi#e for gaining attention. 092 Barb& reiterated ti+e and again Bhat terrible snobs and elitists they all Bere, and hoB +&#h he disliked this. 0He Brote in the iss&e for S&ne 1;, 1988, @3 a+ not in favor of establishing #lasses W of readersV, of ennoble+ents or aristo#ratiIations in tho&ght or in literat&re.@29$ his revieB #an s#ar#ely have had another obNe#tive than to #apt&re the a&dien#e so&ght by the *oi#ans. 1in#e Letters Bas printed in only 1:,555 #opies and Bas sold o&t at on#e, it Bas possible that +any readers eager to knoB Bhat all the f&ss Bas abo&t Bo&ld t&rn to the +ore @1CHDDL@ D" PH3LD1DPHE! CD*1 A* 3* *D3CA 699 readily available Eeek to find o&t. By presenting the *oi#ans as foolish, ignoble, petty s<&abblers over trifles, Barb& Bas &nder+ining their pretensions to be the heirs of as grand a thinker as *oi#a. By #alling Letters &nBorthy of philosophy and the Briters hypo#rites, he destroyed the book-s #lai+s as a +odel of diale#ti#al philosophiIing and #o++&ni#ative dire#tness. By labeling the+ elitists and snobs, he di+inished any interest @the +asses@ +ight have had in Bhat they Bere saying. By #ontin&ally defending *oi#a against these no% a##o&nt ras#als, he s&pported the proto#hronists- #lai+ to being *oi#a-s tr&e heirs, the prote#tors of his na+e and i+age. And he did all this in the #&lt&ral p&bli#ation Bith the se#ond%largest #ir#&lation in all of !o+ania. 9] 3t do#s not stret#h #redibility to see this as an assa&lt &pon the *oi#ans- a&dien#e, nor to se# the +agnit&de of this serial/Bhi#h, after all, bro&ght a lot of p&bli#ity to so+e people the a&thorities Bo&ld have liked to silen#e/as refle#ting hoB great a threat Bas per#eived in the 1#hool of philosopher *oi#a. 9; his #hapter has presented yet another str&ggle over a personage, this ti+e one Bho Bas then alive, by gro&ps hoping to press hi+ into the servi#e of their different agendas for #&lt&ral prod&#tion. 'ifferent #lai+s Bere aired not N&st by *oi#a b&t thro&gh hi+, ea#h set of #lai+ants offering itself as the a&thenti# representatives of a tr&e, #reative, and val&able !o+anian philosophy and the loyal servant 0if not savior2 of !o+anian #&lt&re. *oi#a Bas a far +ore s&itable obNe#t for sy+boli# str&ggle in his lifeti+e than so+eone like Prodan in #hapter :, for Pro%dan steadfastly ref&sed any a+big&o&s &sage of hi+self and +ade very #lear his #ategori#al separation fro+ the p&rposes of poBer. *oi#a Bas +ore +alleable. hose #&lt&ral prod&#ers aspiring to poBer saB in hi+ a prod&#er of philosophi#al @&se%val&es@ for a !o+anian state and !o+anian #&lt&re 0they +anaged to overlook his foreign i+ports2, #reator of a

parti#&larly !o+anian philosophy that Bo&ld be &sef&l to poBer if severed fro+ his &ns&itable pra#ti#es 0his @1#hool,@ his geni&ses, and so forth2. 3t +akes sense that this gro&p e+phasiIed *oi#a-s prod&#tion, not his life. "or his folloBers, in #ontrast, he Bas &sef&l as a sy+bol for the #reation of @tr&e@ rather than barbariIed #&lt&re, trans+itted o&tside for+al instit&tions and thro&gh a different relation to a&thorityL these people saB his i+portan#e in his life and not his prod&#ts. he +atter of national identity, altho&gh treated less e4pli#itly here than elseBhere in this book, nonetheless gro&nded the entire dis#&ssion, in tBo Bays. "irst, !o+ania-s relation Bith the Eest Bas itself

755 @1CHDDL@ D" PH3LD1DPHE! CD*1 A* 1* *D3CA #onstit&tive of the entire @*oi#a pheno+enon@ at several points in its traNe#tory. here Bere *oi#a-s ongoing relations Bith for+er rightist asso#iates in the Eest, s&#h as e+igres Cioran and Eliad#, o##asionally deno&n#ed by the regi+e and alBays #ontrib&ting to the a+big&ity of *oi#a-s politi#al allegian#es. here Bas the e4#hange of letters Bith Cioran in "ran#e that bro&ght abo&t his i+prison+ent 0se# note :2L there Bas also the e#ho of this in his <&er&lo&s 198; @Letter to an 3ntelle#t&al in the Eest@ 0*oi#a 198;#2, Bhi#h #o+plained that E&rope Bas negle#ting both its oBn histori#al val&es and those people in the East Bho tried to &phold the+. 3n addition, there Bas the East%Eest separation f&nda+ental to Lii#ean&-s Letters, Bhen the So&rnal hit B&#harest bookstores, Lii##an& and Ples& Bere in Fer+any, and had they been at ho+e the reverberations Bo&ld have been #onveyed in spee#h rather than on paper. he iss&es in Letters and its #reation of a #&lt&ral opposition took their very life, then, fro+ a !o+anian relation to the Eest. here Bas also the s&pport of Bestern%based !adio "ree E&rope 0#o+peting Bith !o+anians to infl&en#e !o+ania-s i+age in the Eest2, Bhi#h lioniIed Lii#ean&-s books and +agnified their effe#ts and their a&dien#e Bithin !o+ania. "inally, there is the fa#t that this opposi%tional gro&p gained internal leverage thro&gh its relation to and re#ognition by the Eest. Anyone prod&#ing #&lt&re Bith an eye to @&niversal@ re#ognition Bas +ore likely to re#eive invitations abroad, Bhi#h Bo&ld a&g+ent both leverage for their val&es and their #&lt&ral a&thority at ho+eL the arrest of s&#h a person Bas also very likely to bring doBn a stor+ of Bestern protest &pon the !o+anian a&thorities. he gro&p-s relation to the Eest helped to keep the+ a#tive in #&lt&ral pro% d&#tion, rather than per+anently silen#ed. A se#ond and +ore i+portant reason Bhy the +atter of national identity gro&nded the *oi#a 1#hool Bas that *oi#a-s folloBers Bere disting&ished fro+ their opponents pre#isely on the <&estion of Bhether !o+ania is E&ropean and Bhether E&ropean #&lt&re is relevant for establishing one-s #redentials as a prod&#er of #&lt&re in !o+ania, or Bhether one #an have ade<&ate title by indig#nist +eans/by being born on @F#to%'a#ian@ soil, for e4a+ple, by learning proverbs, and by thinking in the philosophi#ally ri#h lang&age *oi#a had shoBn to be !o+anians- nat&ral ling&isti# endoB+ent. Arg&+ents abo&t E&%rophilia, i+ported val&es, indig#nist ar#hais+, and so on, Bere as +&#h a part of relations betBeen *oi#a-s folloBers and their +ain opponents as in the proto#hronis+ debates. Ea#h party to this #ontest over and thro&gh *oi#a offered a proposal for the @tr&e@ !o+anian identity and @1CHDDL@ D" 1-H3LD1DPHE! CD*1 A* 1* *D3CA 751 @gen&ine@ !o+anian #&lt&ral val&es. 3n so doing, like the disp&tants in #hapters $ and :, they i+pli#itly b&ilt &p @the !o+anian people@ Bhile also s&oporting the position of an intelle#t&al elite to prod&#e val&es for it. 3n the *oi#a 1#hool, hoBever, &nlike other #ases presented in this book, the <&arter fro+ Bhi#h s&#h #lai+s Bere +ade gave the+ spe#ial for#e. 3t Bas not insignifi#ant, in the era of Forba#hev-s rise, to have philosophers/of all people /speaking of pl&ralis+, opposing #entraliIation, de+o#ratiIing their genres, and invoking a E&ropean heritage. 3t Bas &nfort&nate that these sa+e philosophers said little abo&t the +asses of Borkers and peasants oppressed

by e4#essive #entraliIation, +aking the+ appear +ore as intelle#t&al apologists than as #ha+pions of a +ore N&st so#ial order. 98 1i+ilarly &nfort&nate Bas their respe#tf&lly a##epting *oi#a-s silen#e abo&t his fas#ist past, Bhi#h left die+ &nhelpf&lly vag&e on <&estions of antis#+itis+ and intoleran#e that Bo&ld e+erge in neB g&ises after 'e#e+ber 1989. he +oral standing these philosophers gained thro&gh their a#tivities in the 1985s, hoBever, gave the+ and those antiproto#hronists Bith Bho+ they Bere #losely asso#iated a strong platfor+ fro+ Bhi#h to infl&en#e die de+o#ratiIation of !o+anian so#iety after C#a&s#s#&. heir p&bli# re#ognition in the Bake of his fall shoBs hoB i+portant their e4a+ple had be#o+e.

Conclusion "or Bhat Be all are, really, is elegant s#are#roBs on fields of Bords. /Fabriel Lii##an& 756 3n this book 3 have atte+pted to shoB hoB !o+anian intelle#t&als, as they prod&#ed #&lt&re, #onstr&#ted politi#ally relevant fields of dis#o&rse abo&t the *ation, thereby reprod&#ing national ideology thro&gh ti+e.11 have gro&nded +y analysis in the parti#&lars of @real so#ialis+,@ asking Bhat it Bas in !o+ania-s so#ialist so#iety that #reated a spe#ial environ+ent for #&lt&ral prod&#tion and for politi#king aro&nd the +atter of national identity. =y dis#&ssion has taken +e into the #o+pany of several overlapping sets of intelle#t&als as they strove to define #&lt&ral val&es. 3n this pro#ess, different gro&ps advo#ated standards of val&e that Bere deeply held and that Bere in #onfli#t. Dne Bay of des#ribing their #onfli#t, 3 have s&ggested, is to se# the pro#ess as o##&rring in a differentiated so#ial spa#e Bhose #oordinates Bere politi#al stat&s and #&lt&ral a&thority. 1o+e #onversion Bas possible betBeen these tBo di+ensions, b&t there Bas a syste+i# tenden#y tor the politi#al di+ension to eng&lf the #&lt&ral one. Central to +y pro#ed&re Bere anthropologi#al re#onsid#rations of the notion of @#&lt&re,@ seen less as +eanings and signifi#ations than as syste+s of a#tion Bithin Bhi#h +eanings ar# invoked, bro&ght into #onfrontation, altered, and reprod&#ed. "ro+ the str&ggles 3 have CD*CLU13D* 757 treated, #ertain val&es and #ertain definitions of identity e+erged te+porarily @vi#torio&s@, +ore re#ogniIed, better f&nded, +ore dis#&ssed. 0 his does not +ean, hoBever, that those they #onfronted had vanished.2 he stakes in s&#h #onfli#ts Bere not only +aterial ones/p&bli#ations, travel, b&rea&#rati# position, infl&en#e Bith the #ensor/or +atters of so#ial re#ognition and high stat&s. hey in#l&ded the possibilities for people to vieB their life%a#tivity as +eaningf&l, thro&gh s&##essf&lly pro+oting their preferred definition of tr&th, aestheti# val&e, s#ientifi# probity, and the identity of the people to Bhi#h they belonged. *otions like this and the behavior that gave the+ life ar# @#&lt&re@ in the sa+e Bay as ar# die philosophy, literat&re, so#iology, history, and so forth, dis#&ssed in these pages. hat is, to se# @#&lt&re@ as pra#ti#e obviates the need to disting&ish betBeen @high@ #&lt&re and its other for+s. Both are pro#esses of prod&#tion Bhose @end prod&#ts@ do not #ongeal into +eanings b&t i++ediately reenter the ongoing pra#ti#e of so#ial life. 3n asking Bhy so +any of these #ontests over the definition of #&lt&ral and s#ientifi# val&es o##&rred aro&nd @the *ation@ rather than aro&nd so+ething else, 3 have offered three reasons. o begin Bith, national identity had been #entral to !o+anian #&lt&re and politi#s/ both internal and e4ternal/long before the installation of the !o+anian Co++&nist Party. 3n addition, this histori#al predisposition Bas enhan#ed by the !o+anian Party leadership-s +ode of #ontrol, Bhi#h e+phasiIed +ini+al re+&nerative in#entives and a #o+bination of #oer#ive and sy+boli#%ideologi#al #ontrols that in#reasingly gave national val&es a +aNor pla#e. "&rther+ore, the *ation e+erged as #entral to defining #&lt&ral val&es be#a&se of the Bay intelle#t&als str&ggled

Bith one another. hat is, the pla#e of the *ation, and Bith it an ideology that Bas national, Bere reprod&#ed not si+ply be#a&se the Party saB the *ation as a &sef&l instr&+ent b&t be#a&se dis#o&rsing on the *ation Bas hoB gro&ps of intelle#t&als dreB their bo&ndaries and so&ght their advantages. 1everal aspe#ts of this Bere pe#&liar to the so#ialist #onte4t. "irst, 3 have arg&ed that bargaining for reso&r#es fro+ the #enter Bas basi# to politi#s in #o++and syste+s. "or #&lt&ral prod&#ers seeking the reso&r#es to s&stain their a#tivity, +&#h of this bargaining #onsisted of #lai+s abo&t @#&lt&ral repr#s#ntativeness.@ 3n part fro+ histori#al predispositions, in part fro+ preferen#es of the Party leadership, Bhat Bas held to be #&lt&rally representative be#a+e fir+ly tied to definitions of the *ation and its identity in the larger Borld. @!epresenting@ one-s 759 CD*CLU13D* #&lt&re need n&t a&to+ati#ally entail invoking national identity, b&t in the !o+anian #onte4t this Bas the for+ often taken by #ontests for attention fro+ the #enter. 1e#ond, 3 have proposed that one o&t#o+e of these #ontests over the definition of val&es Bas f&rther to #entraliIe #&lt&re and its +eans &nder the #ontrol of the politi#al apparat&s, the tenden#y several theorists se# as the first @laB of +otion@ of #o++and%type so#ialist syste+s. Be#a&se one set of parti#ipants/those adopting the indigenist arg&+ents 3 loosely refer to as @proto#hronis+@/gained the advantage, they #ontrib&ted disproportionately to this tenden#y, they #o&ld silen#e or hinder the #&lt&ral val&es of their adversaries, and they the+selves pro+oted val&es that, being e4pressly national 0rather than international2, a national Party #o&ld readily appropriate. hird, Bith respe#t to the e#ono+y, 3 have +ade a general and a parti#&lar arg&+ent linking these #&lt&ral str&ggles Bith so#ialis+. he general arg&+ent is that the shortage ende+i# to highly #entraliIed #o++and syste+s like !o+ania-s pla#ed a pre+i&+ on e4#l&sionary +e#hanis+s s&#h as #thno% national identity. herefore, those in the so#ial environ+ent of the intelle#t&als Bho prod&#ed the national ideology Bere not si+ply indifferent to its possibilities, people-s daily e4perien#e +ade the+ re#eptive to talk of national val&es, as a Bay of #oping Bith their oBn dile++as. 3n parti#&lar, 3 have proposed that proble+s Bith !o+ania-s #o++and e#ono+y led to a partial re#o+%+odifi#ation of #&lt&re. =ore e4tensively felt in do+ains s&#h as litera% t&re than in others s&#h as history, this sharpened #&lt&ral%politi#al #onfli#t and aro&sed the opposition of #&lt&ral prod&#ers Bhose for+erly se#&re and prote#ted sit&ation had s&ddenly be#o+e v&lnerable. 0 he presen#e of poets and #riti#s in the post%Cea&ses#& govern+ent Bas in part a #onse<&en#e.2 Be#a&se their opponents and the Party leadership phrased the str&ggle in ter+s of national identity, and be#a&se of their oBn #o++it+ent to the national idea, these persons too Bere #o+pelled to arg&e their alternative val&es in ter+s of Bhat Bas best for the *ation. he res&lt Bas to reinfor#e the signifi#an#e of the *ation at the #enter of #&lt&re, in the politi#s of intelle#t&al prod&#tion, and, #onse<&ently, in the dis#&rsiv# spa#e of ideology and legiti+ation. 3n one final respe#t, 3 Bo&ld +aintain, the pro#esses des#ribed in this book bear the sta+p of a +ilie& that Bas so#ialist/or perhaps +ore a##&rately, of a @revol&tionary@ sit&ation in Bhi#h the state did not enNoy the kind of

relationship Bith its so#iety that has #hara#teriIed Bestern #onte4ts. !o+anian party benefited fro+ nothing like the de% CD*CL'13D* 75$

he

#ades and #ent&ries of grad&ally developed pra#ti#es of s&rveillan#e, +anip&lation, and dis#iplining that, in the Eest, have s&pple+ented 0so+e Bo&ld say displa#ed UBa&+an 198;Y, 169V2 the dis#&rsiv# for+s of ideology. Be#a&se the politi#al #enter had not yet bro&ght &nder #ontrol the nondis#&rsiv# pra#ti#es that, given long and stable develop+ent, be#a+e so i+portant in for+ing #ons#io&sness in other so#ial syste+s, str&ggles in the real+ of dis#o&rse took on spe#ial signifi#an#e in so#ialist so#ieties. hat is, the #enter-s &nsophisti#ated #ontrol over daily pra#ti#e privileged the intelle#t&al @spot@ in the terrain of legiti+ation. hese syste+s +ade the #onstit&tive &se of lang&age in relation to politi#al poBer rather +ore i+portant than it is in Bestern syste+s. !o+ania-s Prodans, antiproto#hronists, *oi#ans, and others +ay have felt &nder atta#k and relatively Bitho&t infl&en#eL yet the spa#e fro+ Bhi#h they spoke Bas nonetheless #r&#ial for infl&en#ing the #o&rse their so% #iety Bo&ld take. he Party-s instant isolation of the+, on#e they raised a protest, offers a+ple proof. Altho&gh the arg&+ents in this book are too detailed to bear f&rther re#apit&lation, 3 #annot take leave of the+ Bitho&t brief #onsideration of tBo final points, Bhat if any relevan#e do +y arg&+ents abo&t #&lt&ral politi#s in !o+ania have for other so#ialist #o&ntries, and Bhat do the pro#esses des#ribed in this book tell &s abo&t the role of !o+anian intelle#t&als in perpet&ating or #hanging their so#ietyK 3n #onne#tion Bith this se#ond oUii#stion 3 also ask, Bhat Bas the o&t#o+e of the en#o&nter betBeen !o+anian intelle#t&als and instit&tionaliIed =ar4is+K

Nationa" #deo"og& under Socia"ism

3n this book 3 have dis#&ssed a #ase that Bas generally regarded as so+eBhat e4tre+e Bithin the so#ialist Borld, and at the end of #hapter 7 3 tried to e4plain Bhy !o+ania displayed so +&#h +ore overt nationalis+ than other so#ialist #o&ntries. By the for+ of +y title, hoBever, 3 have i+plied that this #ase #an tell &s so+ething abo&t so#ialis+ and national ideology +ore broadly. 3s this i+pli#ation of +y title +isleadingK 3n Bhat Bay #an an e4tre+e ill&+inate the nor+, and Bhat #on#l&sions do#s it s&ggest abo&t the link betBeen the tBo pheno+ena 3 have treatedK hese ar# h&ge <&estions, f&rther +agnified by the fa#t that national 75: CD*CLU13D* ideology is one of the +ost #o+pli#ated aspe#ts of +odern so#ieties, Bhether so#ialist or not. Ethno%national dis#o&rses have spread fro+ +&ltiple fo#i &nder diverse #onditions over +any #ent&ries and have interse#ted in diverse Bays Bith the @nation@ of the Bestern E&ropean nation%state 0se# And#rson 19872. 3n #onse<&en#e, talk of nations and national val&es +eans very different things in different #onte4tsL one #annot lightly generaliIe a feB #on#l&sions fro+ !o+ania to other so#ieties, and s&rely not to so#ieties of nonso#ialist type. Altho&gh it violates the laB of parsi+ony to say that apparently si+ilar pheno+ena re<&ire different e4planations in different #onte4ts, 3 a+ #onvin#ed

that for the so#ial Borld this is right, and that +any false leads have #o+e fro+ seeking @parsi+onio&s@ a##o&nts of so#ial realities that ar# disorderly and &npredi#table. 3t is pre#isely anthropology-s task to p&n#t&re s&#h ill&sions as that si+ilarity of for+s i+plies si+ilar f&n#tions, or that so#ialist so#ieties ar# ade<&ately #o+prehended Bith +odels developed for the Eest or for Latin A+eri#an a&thoritarian regi+es. herefore, 3 a+ not dis+ayed to find that @Bho%ar#%BeK@ arg&+ents abo&t foreign +odels, indigenis+, #&lt&ral i+perialis+, and so forth, si+ilar to those in !o+ania, #an be fo&nd in Sapan, 1o&th )orea, =e4i#o, 1o&th Afri#a, or Free#e/all de#idedly nonso#ialist. *ational dis#o&rses ar# a #o++on feat&re both of nation%b&ilding and of resistan#e to Bestern do+ination the Borld over. hey do not re<&ire so#ialis+ to a#tivate the+, and the e4planations that Bo&ld a##o&nt for the+ Bill not be identi#al Bith those for #ases like !o+ania. Eithin die so#ialist Borld, 3 see+ nonetheless to i+ply that national ideology has taken #hara#teristi# for+s and that the !o+anian #ase helps to #larify the+. Again, one +&st be spe#ifi#, there is national senti+ent that Bas +ore or less offi#ially pro+oted, as in !o+ania, and there is Bidespread national senti+ent that Bas not p&bli#ly arti#&lated by the Party, as in CIe#hoslovakia or H&ngary. Both involved a#tions that reprod&#ed national ideology, b&t the gro&ps engaging in those a#tions and the +otivations behind the+ differed. here is national feeling that has long been a response to #olonial relations, as in +ost of Eastern E&rope toBard the 1oviet Union, not to +ention the resistan#e of +any in the 1oviet rep&bli#s to the #enter in =os#oBL and then there is the politi#s of identity even Bithin the #olonial #enter itself, as Bith the Pa+yat- gro&p in !&ssia. Are there any broader generaliIations that #an #&t thro&gh diversities s&#h as theseK o begin Bith, there appears to be a loose b&t not perfe#t asso#iation betBeen +ore or less offi#ially pro+oted national ideology and the per% CD*CLU13D* 75; sist#n## of a #entraliIed, #o++and for+ of so#ialis+ beyond the initial phase of @1talinist #onsolidation.@ hese #o++and syste+s, s&#h as *orth )orea, B&lgaria in the late 1985s, and !o+ania, disting&ished the+selves fro+ the refor+ist Co++&nist parties by persisting in a +ode of #ontrol that +ini+iIed #ons&+ption and e+phasiIed #oer#ive and sy+boli#%ideologi#al strategies. he +i4 of =ar4is+%1.#ninis+ and nationalis+ in these #o&ntries varied fro+ #ase to #ase, b&t all strongly e4hibited the latter. he Chinese leadership-s ret&rn to #oer#ive #ontrol after the S&ne 1989 de+onstrations see+s also to have been a##o+panied by in#reased 4enophobia and nationalis+, along Bith so+e re% tren#h+ent fro+ earlier de#entraliIing refor+s. At the root of this asso#iation betBeen #o++and syste+s and a sy+boli# #ontrol that fo#&ses at least in part on the *ation +ay be so#ialis+-s @Beak state,@ Bhose r&lers +&st p&rs&e the dis#&rsive #onstit&tion of a strong, &nified i+age. "or this task, the *ation has a very long and old list of #lients, satisfied and not%so%satisfied. 3ts i+pli#it kinship +etaphor and its s&b%s&+ption of internal divisions Bithin an i+age of oneness +ake it the pre+ier vehi#le for leaderships Bishing to present their regi+e as the e+bodi+ent of &nity and strength. Altho&gh Party leadership strategies e+phasiIing the *ation are not, as 3 have arg&ed thro&gho&t this book, the first #a&se of national ideology &nder so#ialis+, it Bo&ld be foolish to se# the+ as irrelevant. his is #lear fro+ a

telling #o+parison betBeen the !o+anian and 1oviet #ases, as )agarlitsky 019882 des#ribes the latter. "olloBing the end of Eorld Ear 33, 1oviet so#iety &nderBent a period of !&ssian nationalis+ that lasted &ntil 1talin-s death and Bas en#o&raged, if not indeed sponsored, fro+ the top 0)agarlitsky 1988, 168% 17$2. Antis#+itis+, #onfli#ts a+ong intelle#t&als, arg&+ents of !&ssia%first%in% all%things, diatribes against @#os+opolitans@/these pheno+ena of late 1talinis+ in the 1oviet Union offer dire#t parallels Bith !o+ania d&ring the 19;5s and 1985s. "a#tions Bithin the intelligentsia str&ggled Bith one another to avoid being eli+inated and to praise the leader and the !&ssian geni&s. As Bo&ld later be tr&e in neighboring !o+ania, the sy+pathy of the Party leadership lay Bith a gro&p e<&ivalent to the proto#hro%nists. hese events #onfor+ to the pi#t&re of @#o++and nationalis+@ 3 have offered above. As )agarlitsky reports it, a se#ond period of national revival e+erged in the 19;5s, virt&ally #onte+poraneo&s Bith Bhat 3 have des#ribed for !o+ania, folloBing a period of initiatives toBard e#ono+i# liberaliIation and refor+ in the 19:5s, +at&re Br#Ihnevis+ settled in 758 CD*CLU13D* Bith its r#affir+ation of #entraliIed #o++and 0ibid., #hap. $2. he for+ of sy+boli#%ideologi#al #ontrol a##o+panying this Bas not, hoBever, nationalis+ b&t a reasserted @orthodo4 =ar4is+@ 0later a##o+panied by Bhat AronoBitI 11988V #alls the ideology of the @s#i#ntifi#o%t##hni#al revol&tion@2. o the e4tent that a national revival also o##&rred, it Bas li+ited to one Bing Bithin the intelligentsia, Bho+ )a%garlitsky labels the *eB !ight and Bho in +any #ases for+ed a kind of opposition 0ibid., 67;2L the o&tstanding e4e+plar is 1olIh#nitsyn. As in !o+ania d&ring these sa+e years, intelle#t&als in a #o+ple4 field of positions opposed one another and, to varying e4tents, the Party. Cet the Party-s fail&re to #ha+pion national val&es +eant that the national voi#e gained no privilege Bithin the #ontest, those Bho tended to +aintain the &pper hand Bere persons e+ploying so+e for+ of the offi#ial dis#o&rse of =ar4is+%Leninis+. he line taken by the Party leadership #learly established th . valen#es of the field of intelle#t&al #ontention.6 !egardless of Bl- -th#r a Party leadership e+phasiIed national ideology fro+ the top, in so#ialist syste+s there has generally been plenty of roo+ for national senti+ent elseBhere in so#iety. his is plain fro+ the e4a+ple N&st #ited, as Bell as fro+ the fate of the 1oviet Union in the late 1985s. he !o+anian instan#e enables &s to #larify only so+e of the possible reasons. Dne, 3 have arg&ed, is the ele#tive affinity betBeen e4#l&sionary +e#hanis+s, s&#h as a Bidely shared ideology of #thno%national differen#e, and the e#ono+y of shortage ende+i# to so#ialist syste+s, parti#&larly the +ore #entraliIed ones. 3t Bas average #itiIens, not Party leaders, Bho felt the effe#ts of shortage daily and +ight be in#lined to s&pple+ent their shopping behavior Bith 4enophobi# attit&des and e4altation of their oBn gro&p. 1&#h attit&des Bo&ld tighten the netBorks of persons Bho #o&ld have a #lai+ &pon one-s oBn favors, as Bell as e4pelling potential #o+petitors for the reso&r#es one hoped to obtain. his s#enario applies #hiefly to those so#ialist #o&ntries having +&lti#thni# pop&lations, parti#&larly Bhen territorially interspersed to so+e degree, rather than separate, B&lgaria, !o+ania, and the 1oviet Union, +ore than CIe#hoslovakia, Poland, and H&ngary 0the latter tBo having feB internal +inorities, b&t even there, antis#+itis+ has served as a telling indi#ator of

e4#l&sionary senti+ent2. he ethno%national #onfli#ts in the 1oviet Union d&ring the late 1985s/the high point of de#entraliIing refor+s in the #o++and syste+/Bo&ld see+ to #ontradi#t this hypothesiIed link betBeen shortage and the effe#ts ofnonoffi#ial national ideology, b&t 3 believe they do not. Ehat happened d&ring the early period of refor+s in H&ngary, CD*CLU13D* 759 betBeen 19:8 and 19;7, shoBed that in that period, shortages Bere Borse than their previo&s levels &nder the #o++and e#ono+y. Additionally, the !o+anian #ase s&ggests that refor+s +ore thoro&ghgoing than !o+ania-s hobbled @self%finan#ing@ +ay, by re#o++odify%ing #&lt&re, prod&#e both a strong interest in @prote#tionis+,@ s&#h as Be saB Bith the !o+anian proto#hronists, and a readiness to pander to per#eived national feelings, for +arket reasons. "or Briters in the verna#&lar, Bho+ the refor+ periods have generally e+poBered, &pholding the national tong&e is basi# to g&aranteeing sales for neBly +arket%oriented #&lt&ral prod&#tion 01herlo#k U1988, 68V gives spe#ifi# instan#es of this for 1oviet Briters in the 1985s2.7 h&s, refor+ in and of itself Bo&ld not a&to+ati#ally eli+inate the effe#ts of shortage &pon national ideology 0Bhi#h pree4isted the so#ialist order thro&gho&t the region2 in the behavior of so#ialis+-s elites or average #itiIens. HoB refor+s affe#ted #onfli#ts a+ong intelle#t&als, en#o&raged the+ and other elites to invoke and strengthen the national idea, or +ade the Bider p&bli# +ore responsive to national appeals sho&ld be spe#ifi#ally investigated in any given #ase. 1o also sho&ld the histori#al for+s taken by a given national dis#o&rse and the histories of the gro&ps that e+ployed it. 3n all the East E&ropean e4a+ples and in the 1oviet Union, pr##o++&nist elites e4hibited a high degree of national #ons#io&sness, and national ideologies had hege+oni# or near%hege+oni# for#e. he histori#al parti#&lars of those national ideologies #ontin&ed to be relevant, and not &nifor+ly so, &nder so#ialis+.

#nte""ectua"s5 Opposition5 and the )oBer of $iscourse

he se#ond of the tBo <&estions 3 Bish to approa#h #on#erns the role of !o+anian intelle#t&als in transfor+ing their so#iety. he in#l&sion of poets, Briters, and philosophers in the post%Cea&Mes#& govern+ent +ade it obvio&s that at least so+e people regarded these intelle#t&als as an oppositional for#e. 3n #hapters $ and :, hoBever, 3 tended to stress that all intelle#t&als, even those Bho #onsidered the+selves to be opposing the Party, Bere serving it by reprod&#ing the national ideology that the Party had in#orporated into its r&le. 3 also observed in #hapter ; that the oppositional *oi#ans had spent +ore ti+e in talking Bith and abo&t other intelle#t&als than in developing an al% 715 CD*CLU13D* lian#e Bith gro&ps lo#ated f&rther doBn the so#ial str&#t&re/allian#es that +ight have fa#ilitated a #hange in so#iety, as o##&rred in Poland betBeen 19;: and 1985. 3n all three #hapters, 3 #alled attention to rhetori# that shoBed intelle#t&als #ha+pioning the privileged pla#e of an intelle#t&al elite. At the sa+e ti+e, in #hapters : and ; 3 pointed to resistant pra#ti#es that 3 saB as i+peding the p&rposes of the regi+e. 3s it +y intention to #on#l&de that

intelle#t&al Bork Bas a+bivalent in its effe#ts on !o+anian so#ietyK 3n part, yes, b&t the +atter deserves so+e dis#&ssion. 3f Be #o+pare their a#tivities Bith those of intelle#t&als in Poland, H&ngary, or CIe#hoslovakia, !o+anian intelle#t&als/despite their opposing one another and, so+eti+es, the Party-s di#tates/appeared not to be a for#e for #hanging the in#reasingly inh&+ane r&le &nder Bhi#h they and their #o&ntry+en lived. *either a te#hno#rati# refor+ fa#tion, s&#h as the one so infl&ential in H&ngary fro+ the 19:5s on, nor a gro&p of intelle#t&als Billing to s&bordinate their elite #on#erns to those of the +aNority, as e+erged in Poland betBeen 19;: and 1985, nor an a#tive h&+an rights +ove+ent s&#h as CIe#hoslovakia-s Charter ;;, +ade an appearan#e in !o+ania. here Bas not even a +ove+ent of #&lt&ral dissid#n## #o+parable to that in the 1oviet Union d&ring the 19;5s, Bith its e4tensive netBork of &ndergro&nd p&bli#ations. 3f one re+arked &pon this 0as 3 did on o##asion2 to !o+anian intelle#t&als Bho #onsidered the+selves oppositional, the response Bas likely to be an i+passioned defense of the val&es of #&lt&reX the s&pport of Bhi#h Bas seen as #onstit&ting a defense of the people against the barbarities of the regi+e. hro&gho&t the 1985s it Bas te+pting to +oraliIe abo&t the fail&re 0fro+ a Bestern point of vieB2 of !o+anian intelle#t&als to prepare the gro&nd of @#ivil so#iety,@ Bhi#h Bo&ld +ake !o+anians better able to resist the C#a&s#s#& leadership and Bo&ld provide the basis for a post%C#a&ses#& order. (ario&s !o+anian e+igres, Besterners, and H&ngarians fond of shoBing that !o+anians ar# @#oBards@ aired s&#h vieBs. o +oraliIe th&s Bas easy, fro+ the #o+fort of a se#&re environ+ent in Bhi#h the +aNority of intelle#t&als in the Eest 0in#l&ding e+igres, as Bell as +yself2 did no +ore to involve o&rselves in p&bli# a#tion/and Bo&ld have done so at infinitely less risk/than did the !o+anians Be Bere te+pted to #riti#iIe. "or +ost !o+anian intelle#% t&als, hoBever, the sit&ation in their #o&ntry Bas s&#h that to do anything +ore than they did Bo&ld have been p&re self%destr&#tion. 9 he feB signs that so+e kind of opposition +ight be for+ing in !o+ania, CD*CLU13D* 711 s&#h as the Fo+a +ove+ent in s&pport of Charter ;;, Bere r&thlessly s&ppressed. =e+bers of the e+bryoni# alternative 3 have identified in persons asso#iated Bith *oi#a and his folloBers enNoyed the #onstant and &npleasant #o+panionship of the se#&rity for#es, as did the feB other persons in !o+ania Bho protested against #onditions in their #o&ntry. o retreat into veiled state+ents in the #&lt&ral press Bas abo&t all that +ade sense. he #onditions s&rro&nding #&lt&ral prod&#tion and the behavior s&ited to a#ade+i# @s&##ess@ in the Eest +ay differ fro+ those appropriate to s&rviving as an intelle#t&al in !o+ania, b&t they involve every bit as +&#h talk Bith and for other intelle#t&als, rather than broader a#tion toBard #hanging so#iety. Ehy hold !o+anian intelle#t&als to a different standardK his is parti#&larly so given the role @the Eest@ played in shoring &p C#a&s#s#&-s r&le against his oBn pop&lation. Be#a&se A+eri#ans regarded the @+averi#k@ !o+anian party leadership as independent of =os#oB, opposition to that leadership inside !o+ania Bas seen as &ninteresting and, hen#e, &nBorthy of s&pport. here Bas no Bestern a&dien#e eager to #onstr&#t a @dissid#n##@ that +ight have entered into !o+anian #&lt&ral politi#s, a+plifying the voi#es that spoke against the regi+e. o the degree that politi#al positions in !o+ania have

alBays been defined by the interse#tion of +ore poBerf&l for#es fro+ Bitho&t 0as 3 believe to be the #ase2, the ineffi#a#y of a !o+anian opposition si+ply refle#ts the Eest-s lesser interest in !o+ania-s internal politi#al diversity than in that of @+ore i+portant@ #o&ntries like @entreprene&rial@ H&ngary or @brave@ Poland. his #on#l&sion is not an ansBer, hoBever, to the <&estion of Bhether the a#tivities of !o+anian intelle#t&als s&pported or resisted Party r&le. Ee +ight begin ansBering the <&estion by disting&ishing betBeen the vario&s intelle#t&al gro&ps in ter+s of the effe#ts of their a#tions. Here, 3 have arg&ed that so+e played a +ore dire#t role than others in perpet&ating the e4isting order and enhan#ing its tenden#ies. his Bas not be#a&se so+e Bere @opport&nists@, it Bo&ld be #heap to disting&ish betBeen the opposing gro&ps 0as +any of the+ did the+selves2 in ter+s of the pres&+ed opport&nis+ of one of the+. here Bere persons a#ting fro+ deep #onvi#tion on both sides, and altho&gh in 1985s !o+ania to be an opport&nist on the side of E&ropeanis+ Bas diffi#&lt, it Bas not i+possible. Ehat disting&ished the fa#tions Bas rather their readiness to parti#ipate in tenden#ies that fed the apparat&s of the !o+anian party and the #entraliIation of reso&r#es &nder its #o++and. he +ost vo#al advo#ates of proto#hronis+, indigenis+, 716 CD*CLU13D* and Party%serving @revol&tions,@ as 3 have arg&ed in vario&s Bays thro&gho&t this book, dire#tly fed the politi#al apparat&s. Herein lies a basis for eval&ating their a#tions fro+ a +oral point of vieB. 3f this had been an apparat&s i+ple+enting h&+ane val&es, one +ight less readily #onde+n its #entraliIation. he !o+anian party &nder C#a&s#s#&, hoBever, be#a+e visibly antip#ople and antide+o#rati#, indifferent to the s&ffering/the #old, the la#k of food, the fear of poli#e, the perpet&al &n#ertainties, the threatened destr&#tion of Bhole villages/ i+posed on its pop&lation in the na+e of +assive proNe#ts glorifying its r&le. he @neB indig#nists@ Bho s&pported this sho&ld not be appla&ded for their see+ingly anti%i+perialist stan#e. Dne #an ad+ire the gen&ine effort so+e of the+ +o&nted to develop a !o+anian identity that Bas positive, to pro+ote a for+ of @lo#al pride@ opposed to the Bestern%based depre#ation of s&baltern #&lt&resL one #an a#knoBledge the intense passion toBard this end that +otivated at least so+e indig#nists. his said, hoBever, fro+ the point of vieB of an Anglo%1a4on tradition in Bhi#h opposition to @tyranny@ is preferred over servi#e to it, the agents of indig#nis+ in politi#s and #&lt&re, Bithin the !o+anian #onte4t of the 19;5s and 1985s, served tyranny repr#h#nsibly. 3n #ontrast, fro+ the sa+e eval&ative position that prefers pl&ralist resistan#e to #entraliIation, the pra#ti#es of their opponents retarded #entral #ontrol/ even if infinit#si+ally and not alBays visibly, and even if their so+eBhat self% serving defense of e4pertise effe#tively defended their oBn spa#e as Bell. !o+ania-s antiproto#hronists, its historians s&#h as 'avid Prodan and Al. >&b, its *oi#a 1#hool, and others Bho str&ggled for their version of tr&th and val&e against the version s&stained by proto#hronists and other allies of the Party leadership, Bere pro+oting pl&ralis+, hoBsoever feebly, by ref&sing to a##ept in f&ll the agenda set for the+ by the others. hat they did so in part by &pholding their oBn #lai+s to elite stat&s Bith their insisten#e on @professional standards@ is, in the !o+anian #onte4t, less i+portant than that they Bere also &sing these standards to resist the totaliIation of val&es and a#tivities at

the politi#al #enter. hey i+peded the #onstr&#tion of the @+illennial state@ si+ply by a#knoBledging val&es alternative to itL they i+peded the installation of Party%+ode flattened ti+e by &tiliIing a different kind of ti+e in their s#holarship. hey s+&ggled into the interior of !o+anian so#iety 0thro&gh translations of Plato, @s#ientifi#@ resear#h nor+s, and @&niversal@ a&dien#es for literat&re2 prin#iples in#o+patible Bith the Party-s dire#tion, to disr&ptive effe#t. By these a#tions they CD*CLU13D* 717 kept the spa#e for different val&es, for a different kind of so#ial order, fro+ vanishing. o so+e e4tent, one #o&ld say that the a#tivity of those !o+anian intelle#t&als Bho tho&ght the+selves oppositional Bas a+bivalent, its effe#ts Bo&ld depend on the balan#e of for#es o&tside the #o&ntry, +ore than on those Bithin it. Eith the abr&pt #hange in 1oviet i+perialis+ in the region and the #onse<&en#es of Forba#hev-s refor+is+ both for Bestern assess+ents of 1oviet poBer and for refor+ers in the blo#, s&ddenly it +attered that there had been a gro&p in !o+ania insisting on a E&ropean rather than an @Afri#an@ identity for their #o&ntry. hese #hanges in the international balan#e of for#es, Bith the res&lting reassess+ent of !o+ania-s @+averi#k@ i+age, +ade it possible to see the politi#al effi#a#y of an intelle#t&al arg&+ent for a E&ropean !o+ania, so vivid a presen#e in these pages. he above #o++ents s&ggest a #on#l&sion so+eBhat different fro+ the one proposed in #hapters $ and :. 3 arg&ed there that all intelle#t&als Bere engaged in a single potentially syste+%reprod&#ing endeavor, in that thro&gh arg&ing, they f&rther #onsolidated a real+ of agree+ent abo&t the i+portan#e of national identity. his +eant that regardless of Bho said Bhat, all gro&ps Bere responsible for re#reating the *ation/ a *ation divided betBeen +ental and +an&al, Bith internal gro&p diversity so+ething to be Bished aBay rather than en#o&raged. Altho&gh all did indeed #onstr&#t the *ation, poBer Bas served +ore by the &ses to Bhi#h so+e Bere p&tting it than by the national ideology itself. 3t is evident fro+ #hapter 1 that in the period betBeen the tBo Eorld Ears/that other +aNor +o+ent in re#ent !o+anian history Bhen the #onstr&#tion of &nity took pre#eden#e over everything else/the national idea #o&ld be +ore or less #ategori#al and rigid, +ore or less 4enophobi#, +ore or less intolerant. 3n both that period and the Cea&ses#& era, all Borked together to prod&#e the *ationL their i+ages of it and the i+pli#ations of those i+ages, hoBever, served so#ial tenden#ies of different kinds. 3f these observations point to differen#es in the effe#ts of one or another gro&p-s a#tions, at the +ore #o+prehensive level of their agreed%&pon pre+ises Be se# a final effe#t that Bas not the Bork of any one gro&p b&t a veritable @#oprod&#tion.@$ 3t involved intelle#t&als. Party offi#ials, and tBo other so#ial @a#tors@, the dis#o&rses on =ar4is+ and the *ation, borne by the &tteran#es of intelle#t&als and Party offi#ials b&t to so+e degree independent of the+, as Bell. ogether these a#tors dis#&rsiv#ly r&pt&red the so#iety-s legiti+ating dis#o&rse, =ar4is+. As 3 719 CD*CLU13D* shoBed in #hapters 9 thro&gh : espe#ially, the diligent intelle#t&al Bork one or another gro&p e4pended on @the *ation@ de#onstr&#ted the #ategories and the

teleologies of =ar4is+, s&bstit&ting a p&sh toBard national &nity in pla#e of internal diversity, and repla#ing =ar4is+-s progressive, dis#ontin&o&s ti+e Bith the #ontin&ities of the !o+anian People. 0*ot all intelle#t&al proNe#ts fitted this e4a#tly, Prodan-s HoreaX for e4a+ple, #on#entrated on one #lass Bithin a #lass%differentiated so#iety and plotted its narrative progressively/Prodan, re+e+ber, Bas analyti#ally a =ar4ist. B&t Prodan believed as fervently as anyone in the val&es of the *ation, as the the+es of his life-s Bork shoB.2 he total effe#t of all these intelle#t&als #onstr&#ting the *ation, either innovatively as Bith the proto#hronists or d#f#nsively as Bith the others, Bas that the national dis#o&rse s&bd&ed the =ar4ist one. he parado4 is that it a#hieved its tri&+ph at the initiative of the Party leadership and their proto#hronist allies, se#onded 0+erely2 by those Bho opposed the+. he gro&ps in poBer adopted this on#e%hege+oni# ideology/so potently instit&ted beforehand/in order to over#o+e it, in#orporate it, and profit fro+ its strengthL they Bere over#o+e by it instead. heir &se of national #ategories, s&#h as in their indig#niIations of =ar4is+ 0#hapter 92, garbled the sense of the #ategories of =ar4is+. he res&lt Bas a grad&al d#legiti+ation of offi#ial =ar4is+, Bhose #hief vi#ti+ be#a+e C#a&s#s#& hi+self. 3t Bas not si+ply intelle#t&als Bho a#hieved this res&lt b&t they together Bith the Co++&nist party leadership. *ation%loving intelle#t&als did not restore their preferred dis#o&rse to the p&bli# sphere single%handed. Party leaders, too, e+bra#ed it a#tively, having failed to #onstit&te thro&gh =ar4is+ a so#ialist state that Bas an effe#tive #&lt&ral relation/having failed, that is, to establish thro&gh =ar4is+ that +i4 of stabiliIed #ontention and a##eptan#e that is hege+ony. he regi+e-s very Beakness for#ed it into the ar+s of the national idea. h&s, the r&pt&re of =ar4is+ Bas not stri#tly speaking the Bork of an intelle#t&al oppositionX altho&gh intelle#t&al strife Bas a vital ele+ent in the o&t#o+e. 3t Bas a #olle#tive prod&#t. 3n this light, one theoreti#al #ontrib&% tion of the present book has been to shoB the instit&tional sites, the politi#al pro#esses, and the #on#rete &ses of lang&age thro&gh Bhi#h one dis#o&rse overpoBered the other and &nder+ined the so#ial reality of a @=ar4ist@ regi+e. 3 Bish to +ake tBo #on#l&ding points abo&t the pro#esses thro&gh Bhi#h this took pla#e. "irst, the legiti+a#y of =ar4is+ Bas s#ar#ely greater in +ost of the other East E&ropean regi+es, Bhi#h nonetheless CD*CLU13D* 71$ +ostly did not adopt the overt nationalis+ ofC#a&s#s#&-s r&le. Ehat is the relevan#e of the !o+anian e4a+ple to those other #asesK his addresses fro+ another angle the <&estion raised in the pre#eding se#tion. 3 believe an arg&+ent #o+parable to that for !o+ania #o&ld be +ade for the+ as Bell/ that the dis#o&rse on the *ation helped to break open the dis#o&rse of =ar4is+, and that instit&tionally gro&nded #ontests a+ong intelle#t&als Bere an i+portant +eans for this. he differen#e Bas that in the other so#ialist states, the national agenda +ostly re+ained +ore hidden, for different reasons in ea#h of the+ and in different so#ial spa#es. 3t is obvio&s fro+ the salien#e of national ideas in post%)adar politi#s in H&ngary, for e4a+ple, that the absen#e of offi#ial nationalis+ in that #o&ntry in no Bay signaled the death of national ideology there. h&s, attention to the e4tre+e #ase of !o+ania opens a neB analyti# ro&te into the +ore s&btle Bays in Bhi#h =ar4is+ Bas r&pt&red in the other Eastern E&ropean #o&ntries. he Nob of the so#ial

s#ientist Bill be to dis#over the vario&s hidden spa#es in Bhi#h national dis#o&rse #ontin&ed, o&tside the p&bli# real+, and to shoB hoB a#tivity in those spa#es entered into the lang&age and the pra#ti#es of politi#s. 1e#ond, the o&t#o+e in !o+ania Bas +ore than si+ply the dis#&r%sive r&pt&re of =ar4is+. 3t Bas the dis#&rsiv# #onstit&tion of a nationalis+ even +ore poBerf&l than before. 3 #annot @prove@ this point, it is an int&ition. Eith #o++&nis+ in 199; there Bas installed an e4ternally i+posed =ar4ist lang&age legiti+ating a +onolithi# politi#al syste+. 3ts +onolithis+ Bas the +eans of its &ndoing, for it effe#tively politi#iIed all a#tion Bithin the syste+ and +ade #ontention pervasive. =&#h of the #ontentio&s a#tivity served to #entraliIe #&lt&re Bithin the politi#al apparat&s, as 3 have arg&ed, Bhile disabling alternative #&lt&ral fo#i Bhenever possible. he res&lt Bas an in#reased #on#entration of national val&es and sy+bols, their very #on#entration generated by the Borkings of the so#ialist order. 3n a Bord, the +onolithi# Party%state prod&#ed a +onolithi# *ation. he indig#ni4ation 0and #onse<&ent r&pt&re2 of =ar4is+ in !o+anian #&lt&ral politi#s Bas at the sa+e ti+e a +onolithiIation of nationalis+. his o&t#o+e/Bhat Bateson 0197:2 Bo&ld #all a #o+ple+entary s#his+ogenesis/res&lted fro+ 1talinis+-s insisten#e on i+posing its alien #ategories a&to#rati#ally, rather than insin&ating the+ pers&asively into the #ategories fa+iliar fro+ people-s e4perien#e. Dn 'e#e+ber 66, 1989, folloBing si4 days of p&bli# de+onstrations, rioting, and violent reprisals, the govern+ent of *i#ola# 71: CD*CLU13D* C#a&ses#& fell. As the repressive apparat&s sided Bith the de+onstrators against hi+, he and his Bife fled the #apital, to be later #apt&red and e4e#&ted. An organiIation #alling itself the *ational 1alvation "ront ass&+ed #ontrol. 3ts +e+bers in#l&ded signatories of the =ar#h 1989 letter of for+er #o++&nist offi#ials, +entioned on the first page of this book-s 3ntrod&#tion, along Bith pro+inent antiproto#hronist Briters and poets. 3n s&bse<&ent Beeks i+portant ad+inistrative posts Bere filled, +any of the+ Bith persons Bho have appeared 0both Bith and Bitho&t their na+es2 in these pages. Andrei Ples&, key *oi#an and signer of a se#ond letter of protest in 1989, =inister of C&lt&re. =ihai 1ora, #osigner of that sa+e letter and oppositionist philosopher, =inister of Ed&#ation. Al#4andr& Pal#olog&, also a #osigner, antiproto#hronist literary #riti#, and #entral +e+ber in the dis#&ssions of*oi#a-s @1#hool@, !o+anian a+bassador to "ran#e. Fabriel Lii#ean&, pivotal fig&re in *oi#a-s 1#hool, editor of the Politi#al P&blishing Ho&se 0r##hrist#ned @H&+anitas-@2. he staffs of their instit&tions and of other neBly for+ing organiIations 0s&#h as the i+portant Fro&p for 1o#ial 'ialog&e, in B&#harest2 Bere filled Bith oppositionist intelle#t&als, +any of the+ a#tive antiproto#hronists of yore. he presiden#y of the !o+anian Eriters- Union Bent to oppositionist poet =ir##a 'in#s#&, the editorship of the #&lt&ral +agaIine Literary !o+ania to its o&tspoken antiproto#hronist literary #riti#, *i#olae =anoles#&. he post of =inister of !eligion Bas offered to the intransigent historian Ale4andr& >&b, Bho de#lined it in the interest of #ontin&ing his Bork in historyL he a##epted, hoBever, his #olleag&es- +andate to be#o+e dire#tor of the lasi History 3nstit&te. 0Dne of his felloB =oldavians even no+inated hi+ for president, in a gest&re #o+parable to those that bro&ght intelle#t&als Havel

and Fon#I to the presiden#ies of CIe#hoslovakia and H&ngary.2 hat several of these people Bere later to resign or be re+oved is perhaps less i+portant than their initial in#l&sion in the neB govern+ent, testi+ony to the +oral a&thority their #&lt&ral opposition had Bon the+. 3n the ransylvanian #apital of Cl&N, the &niversity ad+inistration Bas taken over by a #o++ittee +ost of Bhose +e+bers had opposed proto#hronis+ +ore or less a#tively. A#ade+i#ian Prodan, by this ti+e eighty%seven years old, had the satisfa#tion of seeing his rival 1tefan Pas#& at long last throBn o&t of his +any posts, in#l&ding the dire#torship of the History 3nstit&te and the #hair of History at Cl&N University. 3n a last%dit#h gest&re of s&pport for the leadership fro+ Bhi#h he CD*CLU13D* 71; had draBn so +&#h benefit, Pas#& had held a p&bli# +eeting in the Bake of p&bli# de+onstrations and the killing of st&dents and #itiIens in i+isoara 0'e#e+ber 1:/1;2, #onde+ning those a#ts of @hooliganis+@ and Barning the st&dents in Cl&N that they Bo&ld be +et Bith for#e if they folloBed s&it. Less than tBo Beeks later, an arti#le over his signat&re la+ented the profanation of !o+anians- glorio&s history that the evil di#tator Cea&s#s#& had i+posed on the people 0Pas#& 19892. (ilified in the press, Pas#& Bas not saved by this #hange of heart, his s&bordinates in the History 3nstit&te repla#ed hi+ Bith a #olle#tive leadership, headed by a loyal folloBer of Prodan. Prodan hi+self, +eanBhile, tr&e to for+, ref&sed vario&s invitations to take an a#tive p&bli# role, at length #apit&lating only to the re<&est that he sign a +anifesto to restr&#t&re the histori#al profession #o+pletely, in #ooperation Bith historians of !o+ania-s national +inorities 0Prodan et al. 19892. he spirit of national re#on#iliation evident in this gest&re and in the early presen#e of H&ngarians in the governing #o&n#il Bas &nfort&nately short%lived. A#tive in res&s#itating a #li+ate of intoleran#e Bere, not s&rprisingly, +any of the old proto#hronists. 1o+e of the+ <&i#kly fo&nded neB p&bli#ations, fro+ Bhi#h they propagated indigenis+, antise+itis+, anti+agyaris+, and ad ho+ine+ atta#ks even Borse than before. 1&pported in part by f&nds fro+ =ilan%based e+igre and interBar fas#ist losif Constantin 'ragan, E&gen Barb& and Corn#li& (adi+ &dor la&n#hed Freater !o+ania 0!o+ania =are2 in press r&ns of 655%755,555, n&+bering a+ong their #ontrib&tors 'an >a+fires#&, 3on Lan#ranNan, and Edgar Pap&L Bith the sa+e f&nding, proto#hronist Art&r 1ilv#stri be#a+e editor%in%#hief of a #o+parably infla++atory p&bli#ation. *ation 0*ati&ne2. Eithin si4 +onths of Cea&s#s#&-s overthroB, in both of these there appeared/astonishingly/arti#les favorable to Cea&s#s#& and to the infa+o&s 1e#ret Poli#e, arti#les that pandered to the sense of dislo#ation felt by +any !o+anian #itiIens in the #haoti# ti+es folloBing the di#tator-s fall. he for+er proto#hronists took on varying politi#al sy+pathies. 1o+e ot the+ sided Bith opposition parties, s&#h as the *ational PeasantsL others <&i#kly de#lared their adheren#e to the neB poBer, the *ational 1alvation "ront. 0Antiproto#hronists nonetheless blo#ked one s&#h person, Hie Bades#& of #hapter 9, fro+ attaining the &niversity professorship he so&ght.2 Proto#hronist C. 1or#s#& even +anaged to get hi+self on the "ront-s ele#toral lists and entered the neB parlia+ent as a senator. Ehether fro+ their strategi# vantage point in p&blishing or fro+ Bithin the "ront, the proto#hronists see+ bent on inf&sing into

718 CD*CLU13D* the politi#s of Bhatever party they Noin that e4#ess of nationalis+ in Bhose +onolithiIation they had been so instr&+ental. 3t is therefore &nlikely that the national idea Bill disappear fro+ !o+anian #&lt&re in the post%Cea&s#s#& era. Even in the #apitalist e#ono+y of the 1975s, Bith its #o+bination of both state s&bsidies and a +arket for #&lt&re, the @prote#tion@ of !o+anian #&lt&re and art fro+ Bestern i+perialis+ had been a +aNor the+e. A si+ilar +i4 ofb&rea&%#ratiI#d and +ark#tiI#d #&lt&ral prod&#tion is likely to prevail in !o+ania of the 1995sL Bithin it, #&lt&ral indigenis+ Bill #ontin&e to ansBer the Noyo&s refrain of those neBly e+poBered in 1989/@*# intoar##+ in E&ropa,@ Be ar# ret&rning to E&rope. Ehether that indigenis+ Bill be N&dged politi#ally reprehensible, hoBever, as Bere its fore%bears of the 1975s and the 1985s, Bill depend on the neB so#ial order that develops and the tenden#ies it serves Bithin the+. he dis#o&rse on the *ation #an also be e4pe#ted to enter poBerf&lly into party politi#s, fortified by its earlier #onfrontation Bith =ar4is+. here, if the politi#al e4tre+es prevail, the res&lt #o&ld be to repla#e the so#ialist for+ of totaliIation Bith a national one, in Bhi#h the patrioti# #elebration of !o+anian val&es Bithin a diverse field of possibilities loses o&t to #ha&vinis+, intoleran#e, and a rhetori# of p&rifi#ation, as in Corn#li& (adi+ &dor-s @3deals@ 0se# #hapter $2. "or !o+anians Bary of s&#h totaliIation, the politi#al task of the f&t&re +&st be to red&#e the national idea to +anageable siIe. he best +eans for this +ight be a reversal of the pro#ed&re Bhereby the neB +onolithi# nationalis+ arose, a deter+ined effort to disr&pt the dis#o&rse on the *ation Bith pers&asive dis#o&rses on pl&ralis+ and de+o#ra#y.

Notes

#ntroduction
719 1. 1everal people genero&sly assisted +e in preparing this introd&#tion, a+ong the+ Ciail )lig+an, E+ily =artin, 1idney =inrI, =i#hel%!olph ro&illot and/ +ost espe#ially/AshrafFhani. 6. 1o&r#es for these, in order of <&otation, 4ero4ed #opy of !adio "ree E&% rope-s version of die =ar#h 15, 1989 letter 0signed by Fh#orghe Apostol, Ale4% andr& Birladean&, C4irneli& =anes#&, Constantin Pirv&les#&, Frigore !a#ean&, and 1ilvi& Br&#an2L A. C. 198$, :L Cornea 1989, 7L Pal#olog& 1987, ;, 17L personal #o++&ni#ation fro+ !o+anian friends after the di#tator-s overthroB. 1o+e people Bere doBnright &ns&btle in their invo#ations of E&rope. "or e4a+ple, in San&ary 1995 the London%based e+igre neBspaper !o+an&l liber 0: U1V, 1, 92 r#p&blished an intervieB Bith !o+ania-s e4iled )ing =i#hael, Bhi#h had appeared so+eti+e earlier in (igBro. 3nter alia, the )ing observed that be#a&se !o+anian #&lt&re had alBays been infl&en#ed by that of "ran#e, it Bas "ran#e-s Nob to draB Borld attention to !o+ania-s tragi# fate. @1 loB #an "ran#e bear to have a people, three ho&rs- flying ti+e aBay, Bith its eyes t&rned #ontin&ally toBard "ran#e, disappear little by little fro+ HistoryK@ 7. 1o&r#es for these, in order of <&otation, !a#hi#r& 198$, 7;, 95L Un%ghean& 198$, 79:, 9$;, 9$9L 'el#tant 1988, ;;. 9. As part of a year-s library resear#h in !o+ania in 198$, 3 atte+pted fo&r +onths ot fieldBork in tBo villages, to see Bhat effe#t ele+entary s#hooling and the p&bli# +edia blitI abo&t national history had on peasants and village% based ra#tory Borkers. he resear#h Bas #onstantly disr&pted by poli#e <&estioning of 765 *D E1 D PAFE1 :%11 +y infor+ants, as 3 dis#overed only at die end. his +akes +e hesitate to &se its res&lts in any other than an ane#dotal Bay. $. )lig+an-s Bork is so #lose in s&bNe#t and #on#ept&aliIation to +y oBn that the tBo o&ght to be seen as +&t&ally @re<&ired reading.@ o avoid even greater overlap, +y dis#&ssion avoids the dis#ipline of ethnography, sin#e it is #entral to her book. :. his leads +e to a #o++ent on the for+ of this book. here has been a +ove in anthropology to reassess the for+ of ethnographi# Briting 0see, e.g., Clifford and =ar#&s 198:L =ar#&s and C&sh+an 19862, the s&ggestion being +ade that Be need @h#t#roglossi#@ te4ts, Bhi#h give voi#es to the indigenes and +ake sense independently of the a&thor-s hege+oni# fra+e. 1 see in this &se of BaldBin-s notion of@h#teroglossia@ a +is&nderstanding of his intent, it Bas pre#isely in 1talin-s 1oviet Union, Bhere Bakhtin Bas Briting, that @h#teroglossia@ stood s&#h a poor #han#e, +aking his Bhole point an in<&iry into hoB lang&ages relate to the pheno+ena of #entraliIation and poBer. h&s, 1 present the @voi#es@ of +y resear#h s&bNe#ts as they the+selves lived, in #o&nterpoint Bith the #entraliIing dis#o&rse that so&ght to do+inate and arrange the+, and fra+ed Bithin +y oBn e<&ally do+inant interpretation. his stret#hes the+, appropriately, betBeen the tBo poles/1oviet%type so#ialis+ and the Eest/ that +agnetiIed the entire field of !o+anian intelle#t&al dis#o&rse.

;. 1 a+ gratef&l to the folloBing so&r#es for assistan#e in for+ing +y &se of ideology, Sean Co+aroff 198$L "riedri#h 1989L Hall 19;9L Lefort 198:L her% born 1985L #onversations Bith +y #olleag&es at Sohns HopkinsL and an oral #o++entary by Sohn Co+aroff. he bibliography on the s&bNe#t is, of #o&rse, very large. 8. Fail )lig+an arg&es 0personal #o++&ni#ation2 that the notion of hege+ony sho&ld be +ade spe#ifi# to different kinds of so#ial order, by Bhi#h it #o&ld be said that dis#&rsive hege+ony e4isted in !o+ania. 3 prefer to keep a single notion of hege+ony, as ne#essarily a #o+bination of dis#&rsive and pra#ti#al ele+ents, Bhi#h is fo&nd in so+e orders at so+e ti+es and not in others. 9. 3n general, these tBo Bords seldo+ shoB &p in the sa+e te4t. People Bho speak of hege+ony &s&ally do so fro+ a =ar4ist or neo%=ar4ist 0Fra+%s#ian2 point of vieB, those Bho speak of legiti+a#y folloB traditions of liberal politi#al theory or Eeberian so#iology. =y &nderstanding of these tBo #on#epts leads +e to think that they #an be fr&itf&lly bro&ght together, the distin#tion betBeen the+ being apt pre#isely for the so#ialist syste+s e4a+ined here. 15. "eher rightly observes that even this +ini+al #ondition for legiti+a#y Bas not +et in +ost East E&ropean so#ieties, Bhere large n&+bers e+bra#ed die alternative i+age offered by Bestern parlia+entary de+o#ra#y 0"#her #t al. 1987, 17;%1782. 3 #hoose to e+ploy the notion of legiti+a#y in its @Beak@ sense nonetheless, as des#ribed in the te4t. 11. 3 a+ obliged to Ashraf Fhani for this phrasing. 16. !olph ro&illot s&ggests to +e that the @nation@ is alBays and everyBhere #ont#stable, not N&st in Eastern E&rope, for die @nation@ is a #r&#ial ele+ent in str&ggles for state poBer in +ost #onte4ts. 17. 'is#&ssion Bith Ashraf Fhani helped to #larify both this point and those in the ne4t paragraph. *D E1 D PAFE1 16%1: 761 19. "or three a+ong +any state+ents of these re#onsid#rations, se# Bo&r%die& 19;;L "o4 198$L and Drtner 1989. 1$. E4a+ples in#l&de the Party-s relationship to folk #&lt&re, ro#k +&si#, and NaIIL see, e.g., )arnoo&h 1986L )lig+an =1L !yba#k 1995L 1tarr 1987. 1:. A far fro+ e4ha&stive list of Borks relevant to this s&bNe#t Bo&ld in#l&de Bla#k 19$:L Choldin and "ri#db#rg 1989L Condee and Pad&nov 198;L 'allin and Patena&d# 1988L 'avies 1989L 'eletant 1988L Fabanyi 19;$L Fal 1988L S. and C. Farrard 1995L Feorges#& 1981L Fheorghi& 198;L Fh#r+ani 19:;L HarasIti 198;L Havel 198$L Heer 19;1L Hr&by 1985L )agarlitsky 1988L )lig% +an 1987L )os+as 1989%198$L Li#h+ 19:8L !ev 1989L !&ra 19:1L 1hafir 1981, 1987e, and 1987:L 1herlo#k 1988L 1hiapentokh 198;L 1killing 1989L (alkenier 198$. =ost of these Borks deal Bith die relation betBeen politi#s and Bhat Be +ight #all @high #&lt&re@ or s#holarship. 1;. 1i+ilar obNe#tions #o&ld be +ade of odi#r st&dies of #&lt&ral politi#s o&tside so#ialist settings. "or e4a+ple, *eB+eyer-s 0198:2 Bork on the politi#s of ling&isti#s is al+ost totally la#king in politi#s and rarely invokes anything b&t the #ontent of intelle#t&al debate. A Bork Bith Bhi#h the present book shares +any ass&+ptions/as Bell as an e4press #on#ern Bith national ideology/is Handler-s 019882 st&dy of die politi#s of #&lt&re in J&ebe#. His politi#s o##&r +ore dire#tly Bithin the p&bli# sphere 0as opposed to die sphere of #&lt&ral prod&#ers/that is, of intelle#t&al debate2 than the #ases analyIed in dlis book.

18. he arg&+ent is so+eti+es +ade that the @intelligentsia@ is a gro&p spe#ifi# to East E&ropean so#ieties 0see, e.g., 1Ielenyi 1986, 7582, originating in nineteenth%#ent&ry !&ssia and Poland. Dthers see dlis gro&p as #hara#teristi# of all non%Bestern so#ieties, and as based in the need of peripheral states to for#e the pa#e of +oderniIation 01#ton%Eatson 19:9, 16% 1$2. =any s#holars insist on differentiating intelle#t&als fro+ die intelligentsia, b&t a reading of definitions shoBs that there is absol&tely no #onsens&s on hoB die distin#tion sho&ld be draBn, for so+e the for+er is the +ore general #ategory and the latter a s&bset of it, for others pre#isely the reverse. 1 avoid this #ontroversy altogether by not &sing die Bord @intelligentsia@ at all. 19. A s+all sa+ple of the titles relevant to these and other intelle#t&al topi#s Bo&ld in#l&de AronoBitI 1988L Ba&+an 198;L Benda 19:9L Bo&rdie& 1989 and 1988L Bov# 198:L Ca+p 198$L Craig 1989L Coser 19:$L Eyer+an et al. 198;L Eisenstadt and Fra&bard 19;7L al+ost the entire "o&#a&lt ind&stryL Fella 19;: and 1989L Fo&ldn#r 19;9L )onrad and 1Ielenyi 19;9L !ay and de la La+a 1981L 1hils 19$8/not to +ention the @fo&nding fathers@ of resear#h into this topi#, =ar4, =annhei+, Fra+s#i, L&ka#s, et#. 65. An approa#h si+ilar to diese b&t applied to the politi#s of bo&ndary% e4pansion and +aintenan#e Bithin the field of professional spe#ialiIations is to be fo&nd in Abbott 1988. 61. 3 a+ gratef&l to !olph ro&illot for insisting on the ne#essity of a# % knoBledg+ent as part of a definition of intelle#t&als. Dne Bay in Bhi#h so+e Bo&ld%be intelle#t&als fail to a#hieve that stat&s is diat their #lai+ is &nansBered and dieir aspirations thereby silen#ed. ro&illot believes dlis a#knoBledg+ent is so i+portant to intelle#t&al stat&s that it #reates #ontests Bhere none +ight 766 *D E1 D PAFE1 18 68 otherBise e4ist, sin#e being ansBered in debate is the proof par e4#ellen#e of one-s parti#ipation in the do+ain of intelle#t&al a#tivity. 66. 3 take this as one Bay of talking abo&t the debate on @#old f&sion@ in 1989, as persons not re#ogniIed for their s#ientifi# a&thority 0Brong dis#ipline, third% rate &niversity2 +ade #lai+s the @a&thorities@ resisted. 67. his paragraph is part of an ongoing friendly battle Bith 3vo Bana#. 3 hope lie reads it. 69. his <&estion of affe#t and interest is addressed in Lato&r and Eoolgar-s st&dy Laboratory Life, in Bhi#h they ask hoB the +otivations s#ientists feel ar# related to the a##&+&lation of s#ientifi# a&thority. !ather than talking, as does Bo&rdie&, of a se<&en#e of @invest+ents@ and @profits@ b&ilding s#ientifi# @#api% tal,@ they speak of a #y#le of #redibility, Bhi#h in#l&des s&#h phases as applying for resear#h grants, doing the resear#h, p&blishing papers, gaining re#ognition, and applying for +ore resear#h grants. Any s#ientist interested in his or her Bork #an be reasonably e4pe#ted to #are that this Bork is seen as #redible. his desire presses the+ to good%faith resear#h efforts Bithin the syste+ of s#ientifi# val&es and interpretations they have adopted, &n+otivated by any @Bill to poBer.@ *onetheless, @tr&th@ often e4ists in several versions Bith different partisans, ea#h striving to develop greater #redibility on behalf of their version. Dften Bhat prod&#es a s&##essf&l s#ientifi# #areer is a good nose for a risky e4peri+ent, fort&nate ti+ing in grant appli#ations, things that #annot be #al#&lated @invest+ents@ b&t that are reBarded Bith greater

s#ientifi# a&thority. Dne #an say die sa+e of #&lt&ral prod&#tion, Bhere 1 Bo&ld #all the #y#le one not of #redibility b&t of #reative a&thority, Bhi#h enables one to have one-s novels or sy+phonies or treatises p&blished +ore readily and to pro+ote the val&es one espo&ses fro+ a +ore visible platfor+ of priIes and re#ognition. 6$. AshrafFhani has en#o&raged +e to +ake these points e4pli#it 0believing, Bith +e, in anthropology-s spe#ial +ission/an idea +y !o+anian intelle#t&als Bo&ld appre#iate2.

One8
1. his #hapter benefited fro+ the assistan#e of a n&+ber of !o+anian his% torians and other s#holars, a+ong Bho+ 1 Bo&ld single o&t for thanks, Al. >&b, =ihai 'in& Fh#orghi&, Po+pili& eodor, Pav#l Ca+p#an&, and 3on 1aiI&, as Bell as A+eri#an historians )eith Hit#hins and 3rina LiveIean&. 3 also thank =ihai Fher+an for verifying several lengthy <&otations. he #hapter is a #ondensation of three other p&bli#ations 0(#rdery 198;, 1988, 19952. 6. "or +ore e4tended treat+ent of both die tBentieth%#ent&ry and earlier develop+ents in !o+anian national ideology Bithin a fra+eBork #o+parable to that e+ployed in this book, se# (erdery 198; and 1988L Fheorghi& 198$e, 198;, and 1995. *&+ero&s st&dies treat one or another aspe#t of this topi# fro+ other perspe#tives. A+ong the +ost i+portant in +aNor Bestern lan% g&ages ar# Ale4andres#& 1987, 198;L Ar+br&ster 19;;L '&randin 198;, *D E1 D PAFE1 68%71 767 1989L F#org#s#& 19;1L H#it+ann 19;5L Hit#hins 19:9, 19;;, 19;8, 198$L SoBitt 19;8L Prodan 19;1. 3n !o+anian the n&+ber of st&dies defies #itation Bithin a s+all spa#e. 3 +ention parti#&larly Cristian 198$L Fye+ant 198:L L#+ny 198$ and 198:L =ari#a 19;;L Drnea 1985L Platon 1985L a. arefanes#& 1989L and >&b 198$\ and b, 1989. 7. @*ational essen#e@ is an appro4i+ate translation of the !o+anian spe#i%fi#&l national. !o+anian translations of Borks on the the+e often render die ter+ as @national sp##ifi#ity,@ indi#ating e+phasis not on the essen#e b&t on the parti#&laris+. @*ational spe#ifi#ity@ do#s not Bork as Bell in English as @na% donal essen#e,@ hoBever, and sin#e only philosophers Bill #are abo&t the differ% en#e betBeen a parti#&lar and an essen#e, 3 prefer the se#ond. 1everal i+portant Bords appeared in the Britings 3 dis#&ss. he Bord for @people@ 0popor2 +eans both the ethni# @people@ and people in die sense of @+asses.@ he for+er is &s&ally the sense intended, b&t it is shadoBed 0in gen% eral, helpf&lly, fro+ the politi#al point of vieB2 by the latter. Bo other Bords appeared often, nBtB 0so+eti+es nafi&ne2, Bhose sense is #lear, and +ore #o++only, nea+ 0as in nea+&l ro+anes#2. .*ea+ #o+es fro+ a "inno%Ugrian 0and possibly &rki#2 root ne+%, having the +&ltiple +eanings of kinship gro&p, tribe, and people or nation. 3t has no good English translation. =y dis#&ssion red&#es these +eanings/and both Bords/to die Bord @nation.@ o avoid pla#ing #&+berso+e <&otation +arks aro&nd die Bord @nation@ at ea#h &se, b&t to keep its parti#&lar +eaning #onsistently in the +ind of A+eri% #an readers likely to forget it, 3 Bill Brite *ation Bith a #apital *. 03 do not do dlis in <&oting or paraphrasing !o+anian Briters.2 he parti#&lar +eaning 3 Bish to signal thereby is that the *ation is not si+ply a @#o&ntry,@ as in the Leag&e of *ations and die &sage of @nation@ #o++on to A+eri#ans. 3t refers to

the edini# idea of people, Bho +ay or +ay nor in fa#t have a @#o&ntry.@ 9. his <&otation and all odiers fro+ !o+anian are +y translations, e4#ept as noted in #hap. 7, n. 1. $. "or +ore e4tensive treat+ent of die +atters raised in this se#tion, se# (erdery 1988. :. A+ong the #a&ses of !o+anians- politi#iIed histori#is+ 0se# also the e4% planation in Prodan 19;1, 97:%97;2 Bas, 1 s&spe#t, dieir having learned it fro+ Eest E&ropeans, Bho had already been +anip&lating !o+anian origins for politi#al ends. his is a logi#al #on#l&sion, at least, to be draBn fro+ Ar+% br&srer-s fas#inating and &nderstated investigation of die idea of !o+anian la% t+ity 019;;2. His resear#h into the politi#iIation of !o+anians- Latin origins shoBs that !o+anians began to appear in E&ropean s#holarship at die ti+e of the Dtto+an e4pansion and of H&ngarian%Polish rivalry for #ontrol over =ol% daviaL a farther #&ropeaniIation of knoBledge abo&t !o+anians a##o+panied ea#h intensifi#ation of the Dtto+an proble+ 0Ar+br&ster 19;;, 6$7%6$92. "or Eest E&ropeans seeking to #e+ent their anti%Dtto+an allian#e, it Bas very #onvenient to re+ind !o+anian prin#es and ar+ies at the edges of Dtto+an territory that their origins lay in !o+e. An e4#ellent e4a+ple is Pope Cle+ent (333-s ad+onition to =&nt#nian Prin#e =i#hael 0@die Brave,@ reigned 1$97% tfiDl2, that as des#endants of the brave !o+ans, his !o+anians had a spe#ial d&ty to rally E&rope against the infidel and +&st not shed die blood of their 769 *D E1 D PAFE1 71%76 oBn 3talian kin. his Bas a parti#&larly bl&nt appeal to a prin#e Bho had as% s&+ed die throne as a &rkish ally 0ibid., 1712. he Co&nterr#fbr+ation bro&ght additional invo#ations of !o+anians- Latinity, as Catholi# r&lers pleaded Bith !o+anian prin#es to prote#t the tr&e 0!o+an2 faith and en#o&r% age #onversions to it 0ibid., 1$72. 3t Bo&ld see+ that Bhenever +aNor E&ropean a#tors de#ided &pon a #o&rse ne#essitating repair of intra%E&ropean divisions, referen#e to !o+anians- Latinity Bas a handy instr&+ent. ;. PXle+ents of an eastern origin o##asionally appeared in later Britings, largely by adding eastern peoples to die 'a#o%!o+an +i4. his +ight be done by e+phasiIing a 1#ydiian origin for the 'a#ians, or by in#l&ding settlers fro+ a+ong the no+adi# tribes 0Avars, C&+ans, et#., and +ost i+portantly 1lavs2 that s&bse<&ently infested the area. he Beight assigned to the 1lavi# pop&la% tions has re+ained a +atter of disp&te. "olloBing the installation of a #o++&% nist govern+ent, the 1lavs Bere s&ddenly given pree+inen#e in the for+ation of the !o+aniansL the s#hool +an&al by =ihail !oller 019$62 shoBs dlis #learly. 3n +ore re#ent historiography, hoBever, the vieB is that the !o+anian people Bas essentially for+ed before the 1lavi# +igrations, Bhi#h +erely added to, Bitho&t f&nda+entally #hanging, die #&lt&ral, spirit&al, and geneti# repertory of !o+anians. his fits Bith !o+ania-s so%#alled independent line. As is evident, there has been very little politi#al +otive for an eastern origin for !o+anians sin#e die +atter of origins began to be syst#+adIed in the sev% enteenth #ent&ryL only the period of early 1oviet do+ination for+s the e4#ep% tion, and die eastern origin then posited Bas i+posed fro+ Bitho&t. 'i+itrie Cante+ir, seeking help fro+ die !&ssians in the early 1;55s, Bas appealing to a CIar Bho #onsidered hi+self a Besterner. 8. Frigor# Ure#he 0#a. 1$95%1:9;2, =iron Costin 01:77%1:912, and 'i+itrie Cante+ir 01:;7%1;672. All three #lai+ed a !o+anian origin in raNan-s !o+an

#olonists, Bith only the +ost s&perfi#ial referen#e/if that/to the 'a#ians. Cante+ir ai+ed his appeal at die pro%Bestern Peter the Freat, Bith Bhose aid he hoped =oldavians +ight at last free the+selves fro+ die &rkish yoke. Ure#he and Costin, +e+bers of a pro%Polish noble fa#tion, probably hoped to se#&re assistan#e fro+ Poland 0as Bell as fro+ the Eest +ore generally2 0Ar+br&st#r 19;;, 197%1992. he Poles for+ed a poBerf&l potential ally for seventeenth%#ent&ry =oldavians, for as the self%styled @last bastion of defense for U!o+anV Christendo+,@ they +ight be e4pe#ted to sy+pathiIe Bith the sons of !o+e. 9. he #al&+nies #a+e largely fro+ Poles and H&ngarians/both vying for #ontrol over die !o+anian lands 0Ar+br&ster 19;;, 1972. Dne vieB parti#&larly pop&lar in Poland 0Bhere tBo of the three Chroni#lers Bere s#hooled2 Bas the @dieory of e4iles,@ a##ording to Bhi#h !o+anians ar# des#ended not fro+ !o+an #olonists bro&ght by raNan b&t fro+ +alefa#tors e4iled fro+ the !o% +an e+pire. 15. hese in#l&de the Uniate Bishop 3no#henti# =i#& and others Bho #a+e after hi+, its +ost visible +e+bers being 1a+&il =i#&, P#tr& =aior, Fheorghe 1in#ai, and 3on B&dai%'elean&. "or details on this gro&p se# Prodan 19;1L L&ng& 19;8L Hit#hins 19:9 and 198$. 11. Fy#+ant 0personal #o++&ni#ation2 says that die only people arg&ing *D E1 D PAFE1 77%7$ 76$ at diat ti+e for a signifi#ant 'a#ian +i4 in !o+anian origins Bere historians of Fer+an nationality, for Bho+ it Bas i+portant to #o+bat !o+anians- noble bloodline by +i4ing in so+e barbarians to dil&te !o+anian #lai+s to politi#al rights 0see also Fye+ant 198:, :1%:62. 16. 1i+ilar reasons, 3 Bo&ld arg&e, +otivated the re#r&des#en#e of 'a%#ianis+ in offi#ial historiography in !o+ania d&ring die 1985s. 1e# also n. 65. 17. 1&gar Brites 019;;, 1712 that at the end of the seventeenth #ent&ry, the nobles Bere divided into r&r#ophile, r&ssophil#, and a&strophile fa#tions, Bith a fo&rth polonophil# gro&p a+ong die =oldaviansL the do+inant @philia@ #hanged Bidi the fort&nes of the vario&s #lass fra#tions. 1ee also Dretea et al. 019:9, 198 ft.2 for a dis#&ssion of fa#tional pro#esses in the !o+anian Prin#ipalities. 19. "olloBing the &nion of die Prin#ipalities in 18$9, there developed die +any organs an#illary to any state of E&ropean for+. hese in#l&ded not only an ar+y, e4panded b&rea&#ra#y, +inistries, and so forth, b&t also instit&tions of higher ed&#ation, vario&s intelle#t&al instit&tions, and #&lt&ral organiIations, all of Bhi#h a##&+&lated Bith in#reasing rapidity toBard the #ent&ry-s end. 3+% +ediately after 18$9, for e4a+ple, Bere for+ed die Universities of lasi and B&#harest 0in 18:5.18:1 and 18:9, respe#tively2L a #entraliIed 1tate Ar#hives, in 18:6L a *ational =&se&+ of Anti<&ities, for+ally opened in 18:9L an A#a% de+i# 1o#iety, in 18::, be#o+ing the !o+anian A#ade+y in 18;9L and so forth. hese instit&tions be#a+e vital so&r#es of livelihood to die groBing !o% +anian intelligentsia, sp&n off fro+ the de#lining agri#&lt&ral estates. 1$. his Bas tr&e also of +any nobles elseBhere in Eastern E&rope, s&#h as in H&ngary and Poland, Bho Bere si+ilarly res#&ed by the #reation of a dirigiste for+ of state. 1:. his +ay a##o&nt for Bhy poli#ies pro+oting politi#al independen#e Bon o&t, in +ost politi#al arg&+entation, Bhenever the #hoi#e Bas betBeen that and e#ono+i# independen#e. "or e4a+ple, =ontias shoBs 019;8, $;%$92 that

d&ring debates on tariff poli#y Bith A&stria%H&ngary in the 18;5s, !o+anian leaders traded e#ono+i# independen#e for higher g&arantees of politi#al sovereignty. 1;. !o+anian historians of the generation of 1898 developed a neB the+e that has re+ained a +aNor preo##&pation right &p to the present day, the idea of !o+anians- #ontrib&tion to Borld history. Be#a&se their long #ent&ries of Bar against die &rks and other Asiati# invaders had spared E&ropean #iviliIation die devastating effe#ts of invasion and #on<&est at the #ost of their oBn free% do+, they arg&ed, !o+anians Bere not +erely the prote#tors of E&ropean #ivi% liIation, Christendo+-s first line of defense, they Bere its sa#rifi#ial la+b, their blood die pri#e paid to eastern barbarians for the floBering of Bestern #&lt&re. his vital servi#e of prote#tion i+plied a E&ropean obligation to !o+ania in e4#hange 0se# Cristian 198$, 98%992. 0Dne is re+inded of Poland-s si+ilar self% i+age as the @Christ of nations.@2 3t Bas so+eti+es even i+plied diat !o% +anians had re+ained steadfast in E&rope-s defense Bhen all aro&nd Bere be% traying it and the+. he i+age of gallant !o+anians, obstr&#ted in their Borld +ission by the #hi#aneries and inade<&a#ies of others, Bas #onsistent Bith additional i+ages of an inno#ent and Bell%+eaning people #orr&pted fro+ Bitho&t. 76: *D E1 D PAFE1 7:%95 Constantly fr&strated in their atte+pts to live laBf&lly by r&lers Bho tra+pled on the laB and s&bNe#ted the+ to arbitrary Bill 0)ogalni#ean&-s vieB, in >&b 19;9, 98;%9882, !o+anians Bere a nat&rally laB%abiding folk Bho+ o&tsiders had for#ed to deviate fro+ the tr&e path. =any other ele+ents in +edieval historiography bore the sa+e +essage, b&t for the inN&sti#es of fate, !o+a% nians Bo&ld not noB be begging for attention fro+ the #iviliIed Borld, for they Bo&ld have retained the global estee+ and ad+iration they had enNoyed in earlier ti+es before history so Bronged the+. 18. Consider also the folloBing fro+ a note Britten by f&t&re !o+anian states+en Bratian& and !osetti to their tea#her Edgar J&inet in 1898, @"ran#e raised &s, ed&#ated &sL die spark that noB lights &p o&r #o&ntry Be took fro+ the hearth of "ran#e. Here is Bhat Be ask yo& to tell her, in o&r na+e . . . !e% +ind "ran#e again that Be are her sonsL that Be fo&ght for her on the barri % #ades. Add that all Be have done Bas done after her e4a+ple@ 0#ited in Bab&% B&Inea 19;9, 19;2. 19. his se#tion oBes +&#h to the fas#inating and infor+ative Bork by Bab&% B&In#a019;92. 65. his Bas another reason Bhy 'a#ianis+ enNoyed a vog&e &nder the r&le of independen#e%+inded leader C#a&ses#& after 19:$. 61. Eitho&t having the spa#e to develop this arg&+ent f&lly, 3 s&ggest that it is not in#idental that da#ianis+/along Bith several other #riti#al dis#o&rses / Bas parti#&larly asso#iated Bith thinkers fro+ or based in =oldavia. he in% tegration of !o+ania into the E&ropean +arket proved +ore da+aging to the e#ono+y of =oldavia 0or to #ertain gro&ps Bithin it2 than to Ealla#hia. =ore generally, the &nion of the tBo Prin#ipalities to for+ !o+ania soon be#a+e a &nion of&ne<&als, Bith the +aNor politi#al and e#ono+i# f&n#tions lodging dis% proportionately in the so&thern part 0Fheorghi& 198$\, 1772. his +arginal% iIation of =oldavia Bithin !o+ania-s politi#al and e#ono+i# life +eant both a ne#essary spe#ialiIation in #&lt&ral prod&#tion and a per+anent #riti<&e of the

dire#tion of politi#s. *ot only Bere +any @da#ianists@ 0Hasde&, !&sso, E+ines#&2 =oldavian, b&t so also Bere those intelle#t&als Bho served as ide% olog&es of the Conservative party/the Co&ng Conservative 0or @S&ni+ea@2 gro&p of the infl&ential philosophy professor 0later =inister of Ed&#ation2 =aior#s#&. he devol&tion of =oldavia into a politi#oe#ono+i# ba#kBater Bith a vigoro&s, indeed e4#eptional, #&lt&ral life Bo&ld be felt in very #ontradi#tory Bays, not the least of Bhi#h Bas its +aNor role in the develop+ent of both so#ialist and fas#ist +ove+ents. 66. *either =aiores#& nor +ost Bho folloBed hi+ offered very arti#&late ideas as to Bhat @national essen#e@ +eant as a #on#ept. 1&bse<&ent definitions ar# abo&t as &nhelpf&l as definitions of @#&lt&re@ in A+eri#an anthropology/ not s&rprising, given that these notions are Nointly rooted in Fer+an !o+anti# tho&ght. he folloBing definitions, draBn fro+ #&rrent spe#ialists in literat&re, s&ggest so+ething like an artisti# @national #hara#ter@, he for#e of originality, a&thenti#ity and r#pr#sentariveness ot U#ertain greatV Borks . . . , oBing to ... organi# #orresponden#es Bith the essentialities of #&lt&re in their !o+anian and &niversal +odalities. ills i+print, sta+ped &pon art fro+ the deepest level of a people-s spirit&ality ... is the national essen#e 0Popes#& 19;;, 6:2. *D E1 D PAFE1 96%9; 76; U3nV any literat&re there e4ists a #hara#teristi# vision of the Borld and of life, a spe#ifi# Eeltans#ha&&itffX Bhi#h #olors in a !o+anian Bay the totality of the the+es treated. !o+anian #&lt&re has a #ertain &nity ot style. U hro&gh itV the !o+anian people e4presses its oBn @geni&s@ or (olksffeistX #rystalliIation of a pl&rality ot histori#al, so#ial, #li+ati#, ling&isti#, and #&lt&ral fa#tors 0=arino 19::, ;2. 67. his +atter Bas often not dis#&ssed as s&#h. "or e4a+ple, the anti% Bestern diatribes of*i#hirbr Craini# #overed over his ger+anophilia. 69. 3n the pages of s&#h +agaIines as he E&ropean 3dea 03deea e&ropeana2, for e4a+ple, one fo&nd arg&+ents betBeen ransylvanians and @!egaXenii@ as to Bhat benefits the integration of ransylvania #o&ld bring 0see, e.g., !ad&l#s#&%=otr& 1966 and Fhi&lea 1966 for only tBo e4a+ples2. =any ransylvanians felt that @!#gatenii@ Bere treating their land as a #olony, and others #o+plained that die state Bas not a#tive eno&gh in their defense. Live% I#an& 0198:, #hapter 92 provides +&#h eviden#e along these lines, revealing a f&nda+ental debate over lo#alis+ and #entralis+ betBeen B&#harest and the provin#es. 6$. hose a#tive #hiefly in religio&s and #&lt&ral life rather than in politi#s Bere +ore likely to #o+e fro+ +iddling and professional fa+ilies, die politi#ians des#ending +ore often fro+ fa+ilies of greater Bealth rooted in the old landed nobility. o #ite a feB e4a+ples fro+ a+ong the infl&ential intelle#t&als 0several of die+ +entioned beloB2, Constantin !ad&les#&%=otr& #a+e fro+ a fa+ily of +edi&+ Bealth, based in both land%oBnership and the professionsL L&#ian Blaga Bas the son of a village priestL *i#hifor Craini# Bas &n&s&al in being of poor peasant originL *i#olae lorga-s father Bas a laByer, E&gen Lovin#s#&-s a s#hoolt#a#her, Constantin 1tere-s a Bell%to%do landoBner, Farabet 3brail#an&-s a +er#hant. he leading politi#al fa+ily, the Bratian&s, like the 1t&rdIas of an earlier era, had been +aNor landoBners. 6:. "or e4a+ple, @intelle#t&al@ *i#olae lorga 0a historian2 Bas briefly president of the Co&n#il of =inistersL philosopher and #riti# i+ =aior#s#& Bas =inister of Ed&#ation, as Bas so#iologist Petr# Andr#iL e#ono+ist (irgil =adgear& Bas

=inister of Co++er#e and 3nd&stryL and a n&+ber of Bell%knoBn fig&res fro+ #&lt&ral life Bere +e+bers of Parlia+ent. 6;. 3 a+ gratef&l to Pavel Ca+pean& for insisting on this point. 68. hose feB Bho fo&nd the notion &seless Bere nonetheless #onstrained to arg&e their vieBs on it, thereby #ontrib&ting to its entren#h+ent in intelle#t&al parlan#e. he Briter =ehedinp, for e4a+ple, fo&nd hi+self Bholly &n+oved by the notion that a Briter sho&ld seek inspiration in the so&l of the !o+anian people 0Calines#& 1986,:912, b&t his Bas de#idedly a +inority vieB. 69. 1o+e analysts &se the labels that referred to the #entral p&bli#ation de% fining a parti#&lar position on the iss&es, @Findirists,@ @Peasantists,@ @Pop&% lists,@ @1o#ialists,@ and so forth. Dthers divide the so%#alled @+oderniIation@ debates, Bhi#h o##&rred pri+arily in so#iology and politi#al e#ono+y, fro+ die --national%essen#e@ debates, pri+arily in literat&re and other h&+anisti# dis#i% plines. Aldio&gh Drnea, the +ost energeti# !o+anian st&dent of the dis#&s% sions, divides the parti#ipants into tBo #a+ps, @tradirionalists@ and @E&ro% 768 *D E1 D PAFE1 98%$8 peaniIers@ or @+odernists@ 0see Drn#a 19852, a +ore re#ent anthology pointedly observes that this division is si+plisti# 0B&#&r et al. 1989, ;2. 75. Be#a&se 1 hope this book Bill be read by persons other than those spe% #ialiIing in !o+ania, 3 &se the English translation for titles of periodi#als dis% #&ssed in the te4t. Eere !o+anian p&bli#ations as Bell%knoBn as Le =onde or P+vda this Bo&ld be &nne#essaryL the &nfa+iliarity and diversity of these titles poses an obsta#le, hoBever, for the nonspeaker of !o+anian. 71. 1ee n. 7$, beloB. 76. "or the for+er, se# the 1989 reprinting of his +aNor Borks, !o+anian C&lt&re and P&litt#ianis+ and Energeti# Personalis+L for the latter, his 197: !o%+anianis+, Cate#his+ of a *eB 1pirit&ality. 77. A+ong the e4#eptions to this Bas =ihai !alea, editor of !o+anian Life after 3brailean&, for Bho+ a r&ral !o+ania Bas ne#essarily passe. 79. Citations to Lovines#&-s 1969%196: History of =odern !o+anian CiviliIation are fro+ Drnea-s 19;6 r##dition of that Bork in a single vol&+e. Altho&gh the reedition eli+inated a feB passages, 3 have it fro+ the editor that these ar# feB and are invariably signaled by ellipses in the te4t. 7$. Another interBar fig&re Bho be#a+e even +ore i+portant than Lovin#s#& in the #&lt&ral politi#s of the 1985s is L&#ian Blaga, treated briefly in the #hapter. Blaga-s fate is perhaps the +ore interesting of the tBo 0partly in keeping Bith his +ore e4tensive #reative o&tp&t in poetry and philosophy2, for he Bas #lai+ed by the neB indigenists and so+e a+ong the neB BesterniIers e<&ally, Bhereas Lovin#s#& Bas defended only by die latter. 7:. he pen%na+e of P. =ar#&%Bals, Bho had beg&n as a #ollaborator Bith Craini#-s Fandirea and grad&ally evolved to be#o+e an asso#iate of die left. 7;. "or +ore e4tensive analysis along these lines, se# Ale4andres#& 1987 and 198;L Fh#orghi& 198$ a and 1995L (erdery 1995. 78. A sa+ple of titles fro+ several s&#h +agaIines Bill ill&strate this, @ he 3ntelle#t&als,@ @3ntelle#t&als and Peasantis+,@ @3ntelle#t&als and die Politi#s ot ransylvania,@ @Appeal to All 3ntelle#t&als,@ @!efor+ of the 3ntelle#t&als,@ @ he 1#ientist and Politi#s,@ @ he University and Politi#s,@ @3ntelle#t&als and =y Co&ntry,@ @Ehy Are 3ntelle#t&als CoBardly,@ @ he 1it&ation of !o+anian 3n% telle#t&als,@ @Eriting in the 1ervi#e of die *ation,@ @Betrayal by the 3ntelle#%

t&als,@ @3n 'efense of die *ation,@ @1#holars, UniteA@ 0 hese tides #o+e fro+ the +agaIines 3deea e&r&Nieana, L&#eafar&lX 1o+tatea de +ains, Criterion, and Fand ro+anes#.2 79. 1aiI& 01989, 6$5%6$12 arg&es that despite differen#es a+ong the politi#al parties/greater e+phasis on te#hni#al ed&#ation or on agri#&lt&re, on pra#ti#al ed&#ation for village leaders, and so fordi/all Bere #alling for an e4panded ed&#ational syste+. his Bo&ld provide Nobs for die intelle#t&al proletariat being #h&rned o&t of the overheated &niversity syste+, possibilities tor neB s#hool te4tbooks, and neB positions in pedagogi#al instit&tes. 95. 1e# the se#tion 3ntelle#t&als and the 'is#iplines for details. 91. Fheorghi& 019952 e4a+ines the Britings of !o+ania-s fa+o&s F&sti 1#hool of 1o#iology and proposes that it Bas #onstr&#ting itself, like die !o+anian state, as above #lasses and parties, as tied to the *ation or people diro&gh an obNe#tive, s#ientifi# for+ of g&idan#e o&tside the partisan real+, Bith the ai+ *D E1 D PAFE1 :1%;5 769 of leading !o+anian so#iology to a pla#e of honor in Borld s#ien#e N&st as the state anti#ipated leading !o+ania to a pla#e of honor in die Borld so#iety of nations. 3 Bo&ld add that s&#h an arg&+ent is appli#able beyond the field of !o+anian so#iology 0Fh#orghi& hi+self i+plies as +&#h in his analysis of the Pop&listsL see dis#&ssion later in this #hapter2. !ad&l#s#&%=otr&-s +agaIine he E&ropean 3dea Bas f&ll of arti#les arg&ing for distan#e betBeen intelle#t&als and politi#s. 96. A##ording to #h&r#h historian =. Pa#&rari&, the 196; Con#ordat a+ong !o+ania-s #h&r#hes had the effe#t of strengthening !o+an Catholi#is+ relative to Drthodo4y, giving Catholi# parishes larger properties than they had had in Habsb&rg ti+esL and it e4#hanged die e4propriations of the agrarian refor+ 0the Drdiodo4 Ch&r#h by and large did not have properties siIable eno&gh to be e4propriated2 for rents diat Bere Borth +ore than the straight #o+pensation paid odier landlords. 3t is Pa#&rari&-s #on#l&sion that the Liberal govern+ent bro&ght the !o+anian Drdiodo4 Ch&r#h to a position of inferiority Bith respe#t to the other religions 0=. Pa#&rari& 1981, 951%95$2. 97. his dis#&ssion took pla#e betBeen =inister of !eligion Lapedat& and the bishop ot !i+ni# and the ar#hbishop of =oldaviaL dis#&ssion reported in =onitor&l Dfidal, aedinfe, 17 "ebr&ary 1969, pp. 9$5%9;6. 99. his Bork Bas Britten in 1918 and p&blished posdi&+o&sly, folloBing Andrei-s s&i#ide to avoid assassination by the fas#ists. 9$. Dne notes that it Bas F&sti, hoBever, Bho got +ost of die +oney for so#iology. Ehether that is to be attrib&ted to Andrei-s fail&re to tie his defini% tion of so#iology #losely eno&gh to the !o+anian *ation or to F&sti-s being related by +arriage to )ing Carol 33 is i+possible to say. 9:. his sa+e a&dior gave a s#athing revieB 019972 of a Bork by !ad&les#&% =otr& that p&rported to be an @ethnopsy#hology@ or @s#ien#e of the ethni#@/ #learly a #o+petitor to Paveles#&-s ethnography. 9;. "or e4a+ple, in 1958 '. F&sti Bas appointed head of the depart+ent of an#ient philosophy and ethi#s, in lasi, to Bhi#h he added so#iology. He left for B&#harest in 1965 to take a #hair defined as so#iology, neBly #reated as a separate depart+ent fro+ the for+er depart+ent of aestheti#s, ethi#s and so#iologyL the depart+ent he left in lasi, to be o##&pied by P. Andrei, Bas noB #alled so#iology and edii#s 0Pop#s#&%1pin#ni 1976, 1792. hro&gh F&sti-s

presen#e and infl&en#e, 3 Bo&ld arg&e, so#iology a#hieved +ore independent stat&s. 98. H#rIfeld 0198;2 s&ggests diat a #ertain kind of nationalis+ lay behind the rise of Bestern E&ropean anthropology, Bhi#h helped prod&#e the notion of Bestern s&periority over other peoples. 3 Bo&ld arg&e that dlis Bas the for+ taken by ethnography in the hege+oni# nation%state, b&t in peripheral nation% states like !o+ania, dis#iplines s&#h as ethnography #o&ld only pro+ote lo#al identities and shore &p states that intera#t Bith the Eest, Bitho&t being able to %+pose s&periority. 3n s&#h peripheral #onte4ts, the e4a+ples 3 have #onsidered here Bo&ld s&ggest, dis#iplines have the *ation literally e+bedded into the+, Bhereas in @#ore@ #onte4ts Bhat is e+bedded in dis#iplines is a notion of a @#iviliIing +ission@ or the @s#ientifi# advan#e@ pro+oted by intelle#t&al a#tivity in these @s&perior@ nation%state for+s. 775 *D E1 D 1-AF!1 ;5%;: 99. *ote die e4pressed ai+s of the !o+anian A#ade+y, @to pro+ote the spirit&al #onsolidation of national &nity, to strengthen the #olle#tive for#es of die nation thro&gh #&lt&re, ed&#ation, and s#ien#e, to #iviliIe the edini# ter% ritory . . . thro&gh die #reative poBer of the national geni&s@ 0A#ade+ia !o% +ana 197;, $;2. 3t is hard to i+agine a Bestern A#ade+y e4pressing things <&ite like this.

TBo8
1. 3 a#knoBledge Bith gratit&de the assistan#e of several people Bho, thro&gh #o++ent on drafts or in general #onversation, have helped +e for+&late the points of vieB e4pressed in dlis #hapter, SoIs#f !oro#I, Pavel Ca+pean&, Sane Collier, Ashraf Fhani, =ihai 'in& Fheorghi&, Fail )lig+an, E+ilv =artin, =i#h#l% !olph ro&illot, and +y felloB s#holars at the EoodroB Eilson Center, Bhere 3 offered a preli+inary version in 1988. 6. 3 &se the ter+ @real so#ialis+,@ as do +any others 0e.g., Bahro 19;82, to disting&ish analysis of die a#t&ally e4isting for+s of so#ialist so#iety fro+ Uto % pian dis#&ssions of Bhat a possible so#ialis+ +ight look like. 7. A+ong the Borks 1 Bo&ld in#l&de in a f&ller s&rvey are Bahro 19;8L Ca+pean& 198: and 1988L Casals 1985L 'Nilas 19$;L "eher, Heller, and =ark&s 1987L HirsIoBi#I 1985L )onrad and 1Ielenyi 19;9L )&ron and =odI#leBski 19::L 1i+##ka 1989L 1tanisIkis 1991L rotsky 197;. =ost of these ar# abstra#t dieor#ti#al Borks, to Bhi#h one #o&ld add a +&#h longer list of st&dies of hoB so#ialist e#ono+i#s f&n#tion 0e.g., Br&s 19;$L Horvat 1986L )ornai 1985L *ov# 1987, et#.2. 9. 3 a+ gratef&l to 'aniel Cliirot for pointing this o&t. All the s#holars Bhose +odels 3 dis#&ss Bere on#e +ore or less #o++itted to the possibilities of so#ialis+. heir #riti#al analyses of its reality in their so#ieties re<&ired +&#h so&l%sear#hing, giving their +odels so+ething of a harsh edge. Altho&gh this ta#t +akes their +odels no less &sef&l for +y analyti# p&rposes, it Bas #losely tied to the loss of legiti+a#y of the East E&ropean regi+es/so tr#n#hantly #riti#iIed by its oBn s&bNe#ts, in#l&ding a n&+ber of @dissidents@ in addition to diese s#holars. his is Bhy 3 say diat the very +odeling of so#ialis+ 3 &se in tins Bork has itself been an ele+ent of intelle#t&al politi#s in Eastern E&rope. 3 do not regard this as a flaB, all so#ial%s#ien#e +odels have politi#al properties, those prod&#ed by Bestern politi#al s#ien#e at least as +&#h so as the ones 1

e+ploy here. $. Ca+pean& 01988, 15$2 arg&es dlis point even +ore for#ef&lly, #ontending that it is i+possible to lo#ate the s&rpl&s in so#ialis+, sin#e prod&#tion is dis% persed a#ross a h&ge territory diat the apparat&s does not ade<&ately #ontrol, and sin#e the s&rpl&s%prod&#ing enterprises often have an interest in hoarding or hiding so+e of it 0not to +ention, 3 +ight add, die theft of #onsiderable portions by die dire#t prod&#ers, as Bith #olle#tive far+s2. =oreover, assign% *D E1 D PAFE1 ;: 81 771 +ent of val&es fro+ the #enter +akes die val&e of the s&rpl&s i+possible to deter+ine, rendering appropriation ina##essible. :. An alternative sol&tion, #hara#teristi# above all of the H&ngarian strategy in the +id to late 1985s, is to #oopt odier fo#i of prod&#tion, radi#r than to disable die+. Ciood e4a+ples are the for+ation of Bork partnerships in H&n% garian fa#tories 01tark 19892 and the restoration of shar##ropping in #olle#tive far+s. ;. Ca+pean& 01988, 8$2 offers an arg&+ent in +any respe#ts si+ilar to dlis, @3n#apable of #ontrolling diese U#apitalistV relations, the state si+ply obstr&#ted their f&n#tioning, yet Bidio&t s&##eeding in establishing alternative, Borkable relations in their pla#e.@ 8. he @irrationalities@ of #apitalist +onopoly pra#ti#es and govern+ent bail% o&ts of +aNor fir+s +ake this, of #o&rse, a differen#e of degree rather than a f&nda+ental <&alitative divide. 9. hat die b&rea&#ra#y of so#ialist syste+s do#s not #onfor+ to the E#berian i+age of b&rea&#ra#y is arg&ed by a n&+ber of theorists, parti#&larly 1tanisIkis 0e.g., 19;9, 1;62. 15. Ca+pean& says 01988, 19:2 that the @s&pre+e entity@ is not to be iden% tified Bith any gro&p in so#iety, s&#h as the Politb&ro, for its signifi#an#e is pre% #isely that it o##&pies a spa#e o&tside the so#iety, above it. He also attrib&tes to it a strong tenden#y toBard personifi#ation, that is, the personality #&lt so ad+irably ill&strated in !o+ania by Cea&s#s#&. 3 read hi+ as being evasive so as not to say pre#isely this. 11. =ar4 identified in #apitalis+ a #onstant tension betBeen #apitalists- desire to a##&+&late by keeping Borkers- Bages doBn and die ne#essity for Borkers as #ons&+ers to have eno&gh in#o+e to p&r#hase #o++odities that #ontrib&te to f&rther a##&+&lation. A +aNor ele+ent in the #y#les of #apitalis+, then, is ne#essary adN&st+ents in the relationship betBeen #apital a##&+&lation and #ons&+ption. 3 a+ looking to define a tension of #o+parable sort for so#ialis+. 16. 3 oBe a debt to Sane Collier for infl&en#ing the for+&lation diat folloBs. 17. Dne of +any inversions in the ideal%typi#al +odels of #apitalis+ and so% #ialis+ is that #apitalis+ tends to soften the b&dget #onstraints on #ons&+ing ho&seholds Bhile leaving #onstraints hard for +ost fir+s, Bhereas so#ialis+ has soft b&dget #onstraints for fir+s and hard ones for #ons&+ing ho&seholds. 19. his sort of behavior tends to #hara#teriIe b&rea&#rati# organiIations generally, b&t 3 Bo&ld hold that it is orders of +agnit&de higher in so#ialis+-s b&rea&#ra#ies than in odier kinds of so#ieties. 1$. 1o+e readers +ight arg&e that @bo&rgeois@ so#ial s#ien#e Bill alBays be looking for die pheno+ena #hara#teristi# of bo&rgeois so#ieties, and that +y e+phasis on #o+petition Bithin so#ialis+ is an inappropriate displa#e+ent into diat syste+ of a proble+ in +y oBn so#iety. 3 disagree, +y e4pos&re to life in

a so#ialist so#iety #onvin#es +e diat #o+petition/in a for+ different fro+ that of #apitalist syste+s/o##&rs there as Bell, and it is +y obNe#tive to des#ribe diat different for+, Bhi#h is #entral to #&lt&ral politi#s. 1:. 'e#entraliIation, de+o#ratiIation, in#reased #ons&+ption, +arket, and e#ono+i# effi#ien#y have real #onse<&en#es for prod&#tion Bhen they are intro% 776 *D E1 D PAFE1 86%88 d&#ed into syste+s of the #o++and type. Cet they also/be#a&se of this/be% #o+e i+portant #onstit&ents of so#ial dis#o&rse, ele+ents of a str&ggle for poBer Bithin the apparat&s. Calls for @+ore +arket@ and @#ons&+ption,@ even before these be#o+e a#t&al ele+ents of e#ono+i# f&n#tioning, ar# i+portant rhetori#al +eans for #olle#ting ba#kers a+ong seg+ents of the apparat&s, For% ba#hev-s resort to s&#h rhetori# in die +id%1985s Bas b&t die +ost visibly skilf&l &se of a strategy potentially available to a+bitio&s b&rea&#rats thro&gh% o&t the so#ialist Borld. 3n s&+, iss&es #on#erning @+arkets,@ @de#entraliIation,@ and so forth, are ins#ribed, albeit in a s&bordinate role, Bithin both the pra#ti#e of politi#s in so#ialis+ and its dis#o&rse, and they +ay be e4pe#ted to reappear in die dis#o&rse of #&lt&ral prod&#tion. 1;. 3t is Bhen they are for#ed by indebtedness to be#o+e linked Bith Bestern e#ono+i#s that so#ialist syste+s #an no longer re+ain totally indifferent to die sale of prod&#ts, as they #an +ore readily Bhen self%#ontained. h&s, 3 Bo&ld arg&e that die Borld #risis in #apitalis+ as of the late 19:5s and early 19;5s, Bhen Bestern #reditors began e4porting #redits and te#hnology to the eastern blo#, #an be seen as a pro4i+ate #a&se of the &n&s&al a+plit&de of refor+ atte+pts Bithin so#ialis+ in die 1985s. 18. his does not pretend to be an ade<&ate a##o&nt of the events of 1989, Bhi#h Bith astonishing rapidity bro&ght doBn #o++&nist r&le in si4 #o&ntries Bhere it had see+ed i+pregnable. he s&bNe#t of this book do#s not re<&ire s&#h an a##o&nt, and the re#en#y of those events pre#l&des one. 19. "or Eastern E&rope, see, e.g., Ba&er 19;8, Fross 1988, !ev 198;, 1i+% +onds%'&ke 198;L for die People-s !ep&bli# of China, se#, e.g., Anagnost 1988, *ee and 1tark 1989, 1h&e 1988. Casals 01985, 79%7$2 gives a parti#&% larly pidly for+&lation of Bhat Bas Brong Bidi die i+age of so#ialist states as strong, Unli+ited poBer is only the ill&sion generated by #onditions that the regi+e believes it has #reated all by itself, Bitho&t realiIing tliat it has be#o+e the obNe#t of those #onditions. Unli+ited poBer is a basi# for+ of the false #ons#io&sness #hara#teristi# of1talinist so#iety. 65. 3n a so+eBhat different vein b&t to related effe#t, SoBitt has arg&ed diat die state in !o+ania Bas Beakened by Bidespread @s#avenging,@ as everyone preyed &pon it to get the reso&r#es needed for daily e4isten#e. 0SoBitt offered dlis arg&+ent in a #o++ent at a #onferen#e in Bologna, 198:.2 Points relevant to dlis kind of arg&+ent e+erge in #hap. :, beloB. 61. 3 a#knoBledge a debt here to =ihai 'in& Fh#orghi&, Bho thro&gho&t several long dis#&ssions adhered so resol&tely to Bo&rdie&-s +odel of #&lt&ral #apital for so#ialist syste+s that he p&shed +y dis#o+fort to die breaking point. 66. A si+ilar sort of arg&+ent is +ade by Alvin Fo&ldner 019;9, ;$2, Bho says that =ar4is+-s stress on theory and s#ientifi# so#ialis+ ne#essarily invests

theorists/i.e., intelle#t&als/Bith great a&diority. 67. AronoBitI arg&es for the 1oviet s#ientifi# and te#hni#al intelligentsia 0not of #on#ern in the present book2 that their revolt against Party #ontrol Bas to so+e degree responsible for the neB dis#o&rse on s#ien#e Bhi#h #a+e to fill 1oviet offi#ial lang&age, referen#e to the @1#ientifi#% e#hni#al !evol&tion@ 01 !2 be#a+e as prevalent as referen#e to =ar4 and Lenin, if not +ore so *D E1 D PAFE1 95%98 777 0AronoBitI 1988, 619%6672. he 1 ! presents knoBledge as the fo&ndation of #iviliIation, as a for#e of prod&#tion spoken of as if it had no agentL its fre% <&ent &se #onstit&tes an ongoing arg&+ent for the a&thority of knoBledge over so#ial life. 69. Dne notes a si+ilarity in Bakhtin-s #hara#teriIation of a&thoritative dis% #o&rse Bith =a&ri#e Blo#h-s lang&age of rit&al 019;$2. 6$. Bakhtin-s dis#&ssion of the differen#e betBeen die lang&ages of poetry and the novel s&ggests, in this #onne#tion, Bhy so#ialist regi+es/at least, the !o+anian one/have s&#h a predile#tion for poetry, be#a&se poeti# lang&age is #leansed of the +&ltiple intentions and +eanings that are the st&ff of novelisti# lang&age. 6:. =y thanks to E+ily =artin for s&ggesting this point. 6;. 3 avoid &sing the ter+ #apital for diese di+ensions, be#a&se 3 diink it inappropriate for so#ialist syste+s. Caroline H&+phrey, hoBever, in her e4#el% lent st&dy of tBo 1oviet #olle#tive far+s, speaks of @politi#al #apital@ 0H&+phrey 1987, 7$8%7:62. 68. 3n the @laboratory life@ st&died by Lato&r and Eoolgar 019;92, s#ientists invested in b&ilding &p their s#ientifi# @#apital@ and draBing @profits@ fro+ it thro&gh parti#ipating in a #redibility #y#le diat involved serio&s resear#h and #o++it+ents to the val&es and troths +aterialiIed in this resear#h. "or the so% #ialist instan#es, the #y#le is not one of invest+ent and profit b&t of horiIontal #o+petition for allo#ations that Bill s&pport one rather than anodier set of val% &es, one radier than another version of tr&th, one over another for+ ofa&dien% ti#ity or originality. hese prod&#ers of #&lt&re ar# involved not in investing and profiting on a #redibility +arket b&t in Bhat Be +ight #all a #y#le of a&% thoritative #&lt&ral #o++and, in Bhi#h position is #onstit&ted not by a##&+&% lation of #&lt&ral #apital b&t by inp&ts to an allo#ative b&rea&#ra#y that f&nnels reso&r#es doBnBard. 69. his lang&age of @a##&+&lation@ sho&ld not be seen as inappropriately i+posed, it is often the lang&age of die parti#ipants the+selves, as #hap. $ Bill shoB, and as is evident in the folloBing <&otation, U hisV book p&ts forth a n&+ber of aspe#ts of the +aterial val&e of #&lt&ral goods/a val&e e4pressed in labo&r, +aterials and te#hni<&es, ti+e of #reation, efforts of #onservation%restoration/Bhi#h is per+anently in#reasing, th&s the #&lt&ral patri+ony be#o+es an a#tive +eans of storing/and therefore a part of the national Bealth. . . . he a&thor has proved the rentability of the #&lt&ral invest+ent by the #onservation%restoration of die sto#k of +on&+ents and +ovables 0Dpria 198:, 6162.

Three8
1. his <&otation is an a+alga+ of points fro+ tBo key spee#hes C#a&ses#& delivered in S&ly 19;1. he passages ar# fro+ die folloBing pages ofCea&s#s#&

19;6, pp. 65$%65;, 619. A +ore e4tended version, Bith o+issions noted, is to&nd in #hapter $ of dlis book. 779 *D E1 D PAFE1 99%15; 3n <&oting C#a&ses#& in this #hapter, 3 have generally &sed the English% lang&age edition p&t o&t by B&#harest, rather than +y oBn translations. hese offi#ial translations are not alBays feli#ito&s, and they retain Cea&ses#&-s #hara#teristi# p&n#t&ation/odd by English standards. 3 have p&r in parentheses aft#r th# date of the p&blished vol&+e the year in Bhi#h die spee#h <&oted Bas a#t&ally given. 6. =v thanks to =i#hael 1hafir for #o++enting on this #hapter and to Ed HeBett and =arvin Sa#kson for e#ono+i# infor+ation. 7. he allo#ation of f&nds to a##&+&lation rose fro+ 1;.: per#ent in 19$1% 19$$ to 79.1 per#ent in 19;1%19;$ and 7:.7 per#ent in 19;:%1985 01hafir 198$, 15;2. By #o+parison, fig&res for 19;5 and 1985 in B&lgaria are 75.8 per#ent and 6$.6 per#entL for CIe#hoslovakia, 67.7 per#ent and 6:.5 per#entL for die F'!, 69.9 per#ent and 66.; per#entL for H&ngary, 69.5 per#ent and 19.: per#entL for Poland, 6:.1 per#ent and 65.7 per#ent 0fig&res fro+ Alton 198$, 9;%982. Dne sees fro+ this that the !o+anian a##&+&lation rate Bas far higher than diat of any other so#ialist #o&ntry, Bhi#h +eans a #onsistently greater sa#rifi#e of #ons&+ption. 9. 3t sho&ld be said, nonetheless, that die illegal stat&s of the Party al+ost #ertainly +ade its for+al +e+bership s+aller than its pool of sy+pathiIers. he fig&re of a dio&sand Co++&nist party +e+bers s&rely &nderstates the #o++&nists- pop&lar s&pport. $. H&ngarians, for e4a+ple, for+ed over a <&arter of the +e+bership in die 1975s yet only 8 per#ent of the overall pop&lationL SeBs for+ed al+ost a fifth yet Bere only 9 per#ent overallL !&ssians, Ukrainians, and B&lgarians 0$ per#ent overall2 for+ed 18 per#ent of die Party, and !o+anians, Bith nearly diree%fo&rths of the total pop&lation, #o+prised less than a <&arter of the Party +e+bership 01hafir 198$, 6:2. :. By #ontrast, in 197: :8.$ per#ent of !o+anian e4ports had gone to northBestern E&rope, Fer+any, A&stria, and 3taly. he average ot e4ports to those sa+e #o&ntries for the years 1979% 1978 Bas :6.9 per#ent 0La+pe and Sa#kson 1986, 9$9.2 ;. Altho&gh die !o+anian rebellion b&rst into the open in 19:9, it liad been s&bterranean for a ti+e before this. he e4a#t date by Bhi#h one sho&ld +ark !o+anian @independen#e@ is disp&tedL it is #lear that the #o&ntry Bas se#&ring Bestern #redits and te#hnology already in 19$8%19$9 0=ontias 19:;, 655%6512, and resistan#e ofodier sorts Bas evident in the early 19:5s, s&#h as a ling&isti# rea#tion against @slavi#@ spellings and #alls to restore the letter a 01#hopflin 19;9, 862. Conditions that fa#ilitated the @de#laration@ Bere also of long standing, the s&pport of the Chinese, noB on the far side ot the 1ino% 1oviet split, and the greater +ane&v#ring roo+ diat folloBed &pon )hr&sh#hev-s se#ret spee#h of 19$:.1 believe that the s&ppression of H&ngary-s &prising Bas also a signifi#ant infl&en#e, for it Bo&ld have red&#ed !o+anian an4ieties that die 1oviets +ight have #a&se to favor H&ngary and restore its #ontrol over ransylvania, i+portant to !o+anians both e+otionally and e#ono+i#ally.

8. Fiven the si+ilarities in die evol&tions of H&ngary and !o+ania in the +id% 19:5s, one +ight Bonder Bhy the paths of die tBo #o&ntries had diverged *D E1 D PAFE1 15;%119 77$ so &tterly by 19;1. 3 believe die largest part of an ansBer is the Beak state to Bhi#h the 1oviet invasion of 19$: had red&#ed the H&ngarian party, relative to other for#es in so#iety. his pre#l&ded both a H&ngarian @de#laration of inde% penden#e@ of die +ore li+ited sort +ade by Fheorghi&%'eN in 19:9 and also a +ode of #ontrol resting on national ideology. 9. he <&estion of Cea&ses#&-s reversal is not Bell e4plained. 1o+e observers, s&#h as Feorg#s#& 0198:, 19882, speak of the defeat of a @te#hno#rati# fa#% tion@ headed by =a&r#r or, earlier, by =iron CXonstantin#s#&, e#lipsed by 'eN in 19$; 0Chirot, personal #o++&ni#ation2. Dthers, Bho Bere in the top Party apparat&s d&ring those years, find dlis i+pla&sible and e4plain =a&rer-s e4p&l% sion by Cea&ses#&-s desire to get rid of anyone he hi+self had not personally bro&ght in. he latter e4planation #onfor+s Bith both the @s&ltanisti#@ +anner in Bhi#h Fheorghi&%'eN #onstr&#ted his position 0CroBther 1988, $$2 and Cea&ses#&-s s&bse<&ent behavior. "or +y p&rposes, it does not +atter Bhi#h e4planation one a##epts, the +aNor point being that refor+is+ of the H&n% garian sort Bas e4#l&ded fro+ Cea&ses#&-s poli#ies by 19;1, if not before. 15. 3 oBe thanks to =rs. Anna Eatkins for her lengthy s&++ary of this Bork. 11. 3nas+&#h as the +e+bership Bas deter+ined not by Party sele#tion b&t by p&bli#ations and re#o++endations, adN&di#ated by an ele#ted governing #o&n#il, this Bas not +erely a token #hange. 16. By the late 19:5s, +ore than a fo&rth of die +e+bers of the !o+anian A#ade+y and of holders ofPh.'.s and +ore than half of all tea#hers Bere +e+bers of die Party 01hafir 198$, 912. hat so +any Bere a##epted into the Party indi#ates a +assive atte+pt to #oopt the intelle#t&al strat&+. 17. "or e4a+ple, so#iology had been revitaliIed and given +&#h i+portant Bork d&ring die 19:5s and early 19;5s, Bhen intensive resear#h Bas #arried o&t on the organiIation and f&n#tioning of #olle#tive far+s 0e.g., C#rn#a 19;92, so#ial +obility 0CaIa#& 19;72, +ass +edia 0Ca+pean& 19;7, 19;92, and so forth. As of 19;;, hoBever, so#iology depart+ents Bere dis+antled and their spe#ialists +erged Bith philosophy depart+ents, it no longer being possible to +aNor in so#iology b&t only to take #o&rses in that s&bNe#t. 'o#torates Bere no longer to be aBarded in so#iology, either. !esear#h instit&tes in so#iology still e4isted, b&t Bith the end of the training ne#essary to staff the+, their de+ise Bo&ld be only a +atter of ti+e. 01e# also #hap. 9, espe#ially notes 18%19.2 19. 1hafir 0198$, 19$2 gives fig&res that shoB an in#rease in the per#entage of grad&ates in te#hni#al fields fro+ 79.9 per#ent in 19:5.19:1 to $8.$ in 1985.1981L in e#ono+i#s for the sa+e years the fig&res are 9.7 per#ent and 16.7 per#entL in die h&+anities 0philology, philosophy, and history2 and arts 17.6 per#ent and 8 per#ent. he Central Co++ittee anno&n#ed in =ay 1989 that for 1995, 99 per#ent of ninth%grade p&pils Bo&ld be in ind&strial, agro% no+i#al, e#ono+i#, and forestry high s#hools, and : per#ent in health and non% ind&strial s#hools 0L&pta no. 166, 1 S&ne 1989, p. 62. 1$. he @tr&e@ story of this s#andal +ay never be knoBn. As 3 got the story, apparently Bith die approval of the Cea&ses#&s so+e Borkshops Bere beg&n to tea#h rans#endental =editation as an aid to greater prod&#tivity and #on%

77: *D E1 D PAFE1 119%11$ ##ntrarion. he Party leadership be#a+e #onvin#ed along the Bay that people Bere &sing the Borkshops as a #over for plotting the govern+ent-s overthroB. At least a h&ndred people Bere fired fro+ Nobs or transferred to &ndesirable lo#ationsL the b&lk of the+ Bere intelle#t&als. 1:. his +eas&re has been taken advantage of by so+e organiIations to in% #rease their Bell%being, b&t not +any Bere in a position to do this. "or e4a+ple, one editor of a No&rnal e4plained to +e that be#a&se he Bas not noB a##o&ntable to his previo&s s&perior body for the f&nding of his No&rnal, he @negle#ted@ to go to that body for #ensor-s approval of his arti#les, he si+ply #he#ked the+ and ass&+ed responsibility for the+ hi+self, #&tting the ti+e ne#essary for p&bli#ation. A +aNor +eans of self%finan#ing for resear#h instit&tes and a#ade+i# depart+ents Bas thro&gh resear#h #ontra#ts set &p Bith other organiIations, e.g., a lo#ality +ight #ontra#t Bith an ar#heologi#al tea+ to do a dig. Dn#e the #ontra#t Bas +ade, hoBever, the f&nds and their s&bse<&ent &se Bere not s&bNe#t to #entral +anage+ent. 1ee n. 66 beloB. 1;. 3 have this a##o&nt fro+ a politi#al a#tivist Bho attended the Congress. 18. 3 have tills fro+ an A#ade+y +e+ber Bho had planned to Bill all his savings to the A#ade+y &ntil he learned of tills #hange in die stat&s of its f&nds. 19. his @e4planation,@ like so +any in !o+ania, rests &pon r&+orL 3 a##ept it be#a&se 3 heard it fro+ several people and be#a&se it see+s pla&sible. 1everal of the instit&tes for histori#al resear#h in !o+ania Bere headed by very poBerf&l fig&res, so+e of the+ +e+bers of die Central Co++ittee or brodiers of Cea&ses#& or inti+ately tied to that #lan. Any one ofdies# Bo&ld have been able to oppose the +erging of his instit&te Bith others, so as to prevent the loss of several dire#torial posts 0in#l&ding his oBn2 that die +erger entailed. 65. his arg&+ent Bas +ade to +e in private #on#erning, for e4a+ple, Briter and for+er editor of the daily !o+ania libera D#tavian Paler, Bho by 1989 Bas offi#ially a dissident, and for+er head of the 1#ientifi# and En#y#lopedi# Press, =ir#ea =a#i&, finally diroBn o&t Bhen his #hildren re<&ested e+igration. =a#i& had #ontin&ed to p&blish the Britings of historian 'avid Prodan despite a #on#erted effort by Prodan-s politi#ally poBerf&l adversary, Pas#&, to keep hi+ o&t of print by blo#king other p&bli#ation o&tlets 0se# also #hap. :2. An e4a+ple fro+ an earlier period Bas historian (i#tor Cher#stesi&. H##r 019;1, 168%1692 gives si+ilar e4a+ples for 1oviet historiography. 61. "or e4a+ple, the poBerf&l dire#tor of one i+portant p&blishing ho&se e4pended +&#h effort in en#o&raging resear#hers to take &p the task of reedit% ing the op&s of prior s#holars Bhose o&tp&t Bas enor+o&s. His press a#hieved a virt&al +onopoly on these h&ge reeditions, Bhi#h re<&ired s&bstantial b&% rea&#rati# reso&r#es and endoBed his operation Bith a prestige that enabled it to a#<&ire odier i+portant Borks. Partly in #onse<&en#e of all this, he Bas also able to r&n his operation +ore or less in the bla#k, &nlike +any other presses. Dne thinks tBi#e before @dise+barking@ a dire#tor like this. 66. 3 refer here spe#ifi#ally to a series based in lasi Bhi#h re<&ired no #entral approval and in Bhi#h appeared, a+ong other offi#ially &np&blishable ite+s, tBo &n##nsored and by no +eans &nproble+ati# essays by +yself/Bho Bas at die very sa+e ti+e being atta#ked in a @nationalist@ +agaIine in B&#harest. 67. 3t Bas, 3 s&spe#t, pre#isely the resistan#e of the elite g&ardians of @high

*D E1 D PAFE1 11$%175 77; #&lt&re@ that helped p&sh the leadership toBard redefining #&lt&re as an affair of the +asses, fo#&sed on the @1ong of !o+ania@ folk festivals. 69. 3n so+e respe#ts, the 1985s rese+bled die interBar years. hen, as in the 1985s, state reso&r#es floBed aBay fro+ a h&+anist intelligentsia that lived pri+arily off the state b&dget. he !o+anian leadership-s atte+pt to free itself of foreign debt d&ring the 1985s gave priority to the needs of ind&stry that Bo&ld generate the ne#essary e4ports. hese reversals in the #li+ate for #&lt&ral prod&#tion hit at a s&bstantial intelle#t&al strat&+, prod&#ed &nder earlier, less stringent b&dgets and rese+bling the neB ed&#ated strat&+ that sBollen ed&#ational b&dgets had p&+ped o&t in neBly enlarged !o+ania d&ring the 1965s. 3n both eras, intelle#t&als looking to the state for their livelihood #o+peted Bith one anodier on gro&nds of Bho best represented national val&es. he #&lt&ral prote#tionis+ of die 1965s had its analog&e in the 1985s, as #hap. $ Bill shoB. 6$. 3t +&st be noted, hoBever, that he also assigned the 1lavs an i+portant tho&gh not do+inant role in !o+anian edinogenesis. 6:. A very partial listing of so+e of the+, Arge_ 19;5L Brat& 1987, B&#&r etal. 1989L C#ter#hi 19;1L 5. Constantines#& 19;7L "lorea 1986L H&r#Iean& 198$L 3an#& 1985L =ar#ea 19;$L =arino 19::L ". =ihailes#& 1981L Pet#& 1985L Popes#& 19;;L !a#hi#r& 198$L !ebed#& 19;1L 1i+ion 19::L anase 19;7L (argoli#i 19;1. 6;. 3 a+ indebted to Pavel Ca+pean& for insisting on these points. 68. his arg&+ent has been s&ggested to +e by !o+anian s#holars, one of Bho+ Bas in #lose #onta#t Bith die 'eN leadership at the ti+e. 69. he first of these Bas reported to +e by a kindergarten tea#her as die latest disposition she had re#eivedL the se#ond Bas the fate of the Balls in the Cl&N University philosophy depart+ent. 75. /And not only rhetori#ally, its 1988 +e+bership en#o+passed al+ost one%third of the ad&lt pop&lation. "or a rhetori#al e4a+ple fro+ so+eone other than Cea&ses#&, here is nationalist poet C. (. &dor, on die *inth Congress that for+ally installed Cea&ses#& as Feneral 1e#retary, @3 dare to affir+ that it Bas not a Congress of the Party, only, b&t of the nation@ 0198:, 652. 71. his point Bill be e4panded in #hap. $. "olloBing the 198: p&bli#ation, + B&dapest, of a diree%vol&+e History of ransylvania, the !o+anian histo% riographi#al #o++&nity Bas +obiliIed to rea#t to the @lies@ and @distortions@ propagated by this treatise. he i+age of a tr&thf&l !o+ania defiled by die Freat UnBashed of falsified history e+erges readily fro+ the pages of s&#h Borks as Pas#& and 1tefanes#&, eds. 198; 0first p&blished in 198:2. 76. 3 have this infor+ation fro+ a #olleag&e Bho sat on his #ity-s +anage+ent #o&n#il. 77. =arvin Sa#kson, personal #o++&ni#ation. 79. SoBitt, personal #o++&ni#ation. 7$. he peregrinations ofBlaga-s stat&e #o&ld be &sed to reveal +&#h abo&t the politi#s of #&lt&re in !o+ania fro+ 19:5 to 1989. Co++issioned in 19:5 and #o+pleted in 19:$, die stat&e stood in the inner #o&rtyard of the Edi%nography =&se&+ in Cl&N for so+e ti+e, th&s invisible to all b&t visitors to the +&se&+. 3n 19:: a proposal Bas +ade and a##epted in B&#harest to +ove die 778 *D E1 D PAFE1 175%195

*D E1 D PAFE1 198%1$: 779 stat&e to the s<&are near the &niversity library and st&dent &nion, b&t the ap% proval Bas then BithdraBnL after a short ti+e of sitting in the s<&are #overed by a sheet, Blaga ret&rned to tlie +&se&+. 3n 19;1 or 19;6 he Bas taken to the #ity park, Bhere, along Bith a n&+ber of other fig&res of ransylvanian #&lt&re and letters, he enNoyed the shade. 3n 198: a gro&p of offi#ials in the Cl&N ad+inistration de#ided to +ove hi+ to his #&rrent pla#e of honor before the *ational heater. 3t is #lai+ed that approval fro+ B&#harest Bas not so&ght tor this, a #lai+ 3 have no reason to do&bt, b&t 3 also believe per+ission Bo&ld have been granted. 7:. !o+anian asso#iates in 1988 e4pressed to +e their belief that the level of trade Bith die 1oviet Union Bas heading toBard $5 per#ent, and +ost of it Bas in foodst&ff-s. Ehen asked hoB they knoB this, three of the+ referred to friends Bho Bere dire#tors of food%pro#essing plants or Borked for the railBay and had seen the rapid redire#tion of the floB of these goods fro+ Eest to East. 7;. 3 oBe this phrasing to AshrafFhani. 78. Dbservers inside and o&tside !o+ania Bidely believe that the #h&r#h Bas an obedient servant of the Cea&s#s#& regi+e, and indeed there is good evi% den#e for this vieB. *onetheless, in +y field resear#h 3 en#o&ntered several in% stan#es of the #h&r#h-s #ontesting the definition of !o+anian identity/arg&ing, for e4a+ple, that religio&s instit&tions had &nified die people thro&gh #ent&ries of foreign r&le, Bhereas the offi#ial version held that ties a+ong !o+anians in the different provin#es Bere +aintained by e#ono+i# e4#hanges and floBs of pop&lation. 3 have heard these #leri#al #o&nterarg&+ents in o##asional ser+ons, b&t it is ni#ely e4e+plified in tBo #ontrasting arti#les in #h&r#h p&b% li#ations, Bhi#h 3 en#o&ntered bv #han#e 0Fra+ada 19;8L Pla+ad#ala 19;;L die for+er Bas then a &niversity%based historian, the latter the ar#hbishop of ransylvania2. Another pie#e of ane#dotal eviden#e #on#erning the #h&r#h-s effort to reap% propriate so+e of the lang&age of the *ation is that lively dis#&ssions Bere taking pla#e in the late 1985s abo&t prospe#tive #anoniIation of three +aNor histori#al fig&res, hitherto appropriated by tlie Party- and by professional historians, Prin#e 1tephen the Freat of =oldavia and Prin#es Constantin Brin#ovean& and *#agoe Basarab of =&nt#nia. hese ideas e4#ited #onsiderable pop&lar interestL as of 1989, their fate had not been settled.

0our8
1. Pavel Ca+pean& and 1tefana 1t#riad# did +e the favor of trashing an earlier version of this #hapterL 1&san Fal and Hy (an L&ong so&ght to reass&re +e that there Bas nonetheless so+ething to it. AshrafFhani helped +e to see that the arg&+ent 3 Bas trying to +ake in it Bas even +ore signifi#ant than had tho&ght. =y thanks to all of the+. 6. 3 first read this paper in an English translation +ade by 'avid 1ilver+an 0University of London2 and have e+ployed his translation in +y te4t. he paper Bas p&blished in "ren#h, b&t 3 have been &nable to find that version. 7. his so+eBhat #rvpti# state+ent insin&ates that the Briters !adio "ree E&rope prefers are persons Bho Bere silently #o+pli#ito&s Bith the dog+atises of the 19$5s and, not being visibly #o+pro+ised as are the latter, #an noB do dog+atis+-s Bork. As already +entioned, atta#ks on !adio "ree E&rope Bere a

Bay of striking at opponents in !o+ania and &nder+ining their #redibility. 9. his #ol&+n Bas for so+e ti+e a reg&lar feat&re of the Beekly Literary% Artisti# 1&pple+ent of the neBspaper 1#inteia tineret&l&i, the yo&ng people-s version of tlie offi#ial Party daily. $. =ih& is one of !o+ania-s fore+ost so#iologists. His #areer has in#l&ded a stint of tea#hing in the United 1tates, e4tensive fa+iliarity Bith A+eri#an so#iologi#al literat&re of the 19:5s and 19;5s, a serio&s interest in so#iologi#al +ethods and tlie st&dy of s+all%gro&p pro#esses, and +any years as a professor 0b&t not depart+ent head2 in the depart+ent of philosophy and so#iology at the &niversity in Cl&N. His relation to =ar4is+ is not entirely #lear to +e, b&r he is too yo&ng, in any #ase, to have been serio&sly a#tive in the so#ialist +ove+ent in its early days. 1 s&spe#t that his &se of =ar4is+ in his Britings is largely obligatory and opport&nisti#, rather than prin#ipled. 3 o&ght to add a note #on#erning +y relation to =ih&. He did +e the favor of revieBing +y book ransylvanian (illagers 0see =ih& 1988r2 after anodier i+portant so#iologist, Bad#s#& 0se# dis#&ssion in this #hapter, and n. 11 be% loB2, had ref&sed to revieB it. Altho&gh +ost of +y asso#iates regarded =ih&-s revieB as negative, 3 Bas gratef&l for it sin#e it alloBed +e the opport&nity of a p&bli# reply. :. =ih&-s defense of Blaga Bas p&blished in 198: b&t appeared in a #olle#tion of his essays in 1988. 3 #ite fro+ die latter, Bhi#h is +ore a##essible. ;. =ih& des#ribes these neB #o++&nist dire#tions as @the de+o#ratiIation of !o+ania, die dis+antling of so#ial ine<&ality thro&gh the agrarian refor+, die str&ggle to gain, preserve and strengthen national independen#e and sover% eignty, the #reation and pro+otion of the neB as a spe#ial for+ of patriotis+@ 01988\, 982. 1&#h a des#ription +akes it easy for Blaga not to have been anti% =ar4ist. 8. he pla&sibility of this #lai+ rests on the fa#t that in ransylvania, a dis% proportionate n&+ber of pre%199$ #o++&nists had been H&ngarians. 9. 3n +y fo&rteen years of asso#iation Bith !o+ania, tins Bas tlie first pie#e ot sa+iIdat identified as s&#h Bith Bhi#h 3 #a+e into #onta#t. hree persons fro+ totally different ba#kgro&nds and #ities +entioned it to +e, Bhi#h +ade it tnply signifi#ant. Persons &nfa+iliar Bith !o+ania +ay note Bith s&rprise that a =ar4ist te4t #ir#&lated in &ndergro&nd for+. his is indeed elo<&ent of tile% state of =ar4ist tho&ght in C#a&ses#&-s !o+ania, b&t it Bas also tr&e of oilier so#ialist #o&ntries s&#h as H&ngary, East Fer+any, and Poland, Bhere leftist #riti#s of the e4isting leadership be#a+e dissidents and #ir#&lated their +aterial &ndergro&nd. 15. Dt the less serio&s 3 Bo&ld #ite the effort ot-C. 1ores#& in his pole+i# Bith @dog+atist@ >. Drnea. he arg&+ent took pla#e in he Eeek 01aptd+ina2 795 *D E1 D PAFE 1$; *D E1 D PAFE1 1$8%1:9 791 for 1986, 1or#s#&-s first three arti#les dated "ebr&ary 19 and 6: and =ar#h $L Drn#a-s replies are dated =ar#h 6:, April 6, and April 9, and 1ores#&-s reNoin% ders April 1: and 67. 3n this pole+i#, 1ores#& so&ght to shoB that ethni#ity sho&ld be prior to #lass in a =ar4ist analysis of !o+anian so#ial history, and that s&#h an analysis Bo&ld reveal/inter alia/that !o+ania never had a native bo&rgeoisie that Bas fas#ist, hen#e fas#is+ Bas alien to the tr&e #hara#ter of !o+anians.

11. 3t also leaves a resid&e of dread in the pit of one-s sto+a#h. his, at least, Bas +y oBn e4perien#e in reading the book, Bhi#h 3 fo&nd al+ost i+possible to p&t doBn, yet 3 Bas dist&rbed by its 4enophobi# tone. 3 had die feeling of having been daIIled by a perfor+an#e Bhose &nderlying tenden#ies 3 #o&ld not <&ite fatho+, and they +ade +e &neasy. 3 sho&ld add that +y relation Bith 3li# Bades#& +ay #olor +y reading of his Bork, for it Bas he above all Bho b&ried +y oBn book on !o+ania 0(erdery 19872 in that @elo<&ent silen#e@ and tlie @light rain@ of ridi#&le des#ribed in #hap. $ by literary #riti# =anol#s#&. Asked to revieB it early in +y year-s re% sear#h in 1989, he fo&nd offensive to his national sensibilities the tBo ane#dotes 3 had pla#ed near die front to establish die book-s analyti# proble+L he therefore deter+ined to s+other it, and his rea#tion #reated a n&+ber of proble+s for +y s&bse<&ent Bork in !o+ania. Eell before 1 learned of his role in #reating diffi#&lties for +e, hoBever, 3 had read his book and fo&nd it both provo#ative and &nsettling. 16. =&#h of the for#e of this book resides in its treat+ent of spe#ifi# feat&res of !o+anian e#ono+i# and #&lt&ral historyL to enter into an ade<&ate dis% #&ssion of it Bo&ld re<&ire not only +ore knoBledge of these dian 3 +yself possess b&t far +ore dian die patien#e of the nonspe#ialist reader Bo&ld bear. 17. 3ts agenda is in fa#t +&ltiple, not triple. A+ong the goals 3 do not to&#h &pon is his atta#k on the idea of @syn#hronis+@ asso#iated Bith interBar #riti# Lovines#& 0see #hap. 12. 19. 1o#iologist =ih&, in an intelligent revieB of the book, e4plains this very #learly 0=ih& 1988Y2. 3n the ter+s to be introd&#ed in #hap. $, Bad#s#&-s book is an e4#ellent e4a+ple of proto#hronis+ in so#iology. 1$. 1everal !o+anian intelle#t&als Bith Bho+ 3 have dis#&ssed E+ines#& obNe#ted to +y #alling hi+ antise+iti#. Dn die basis of +y ad+ittedly li+ited fa+iliarity Bith so+e of his Britings, 3 find it diffi#&lt to a##ept dlis N&dg+ent, so+e of Bhose d&bio&s reasoning appears beloB in +y dis#&ssion of Bades#&. 3 prefer to se# this passionate insisten#e of +y friends as rooted in so+ething else, given the atta#ks that Bere then being +ade on these people as @#os% +opolitans@ and @traitors to !o+anian #&lt&re,@ it Bas vital for the+ to defend the great na+es in !o+ania-s #&lt&ral history. HoB is one to defend a great poet Bho is a blatant antis#+it#K Dne tries to e4plain his antis#+itis+ aBay. 3n C#a&ses#&-s !o+ania, it Bas +ore dangero&s to speak o&t against tenden#ies in a great poet-s Bork/lest one be branded a traitor/than it Bas to deny die eviden#e of one-s intelligen#e as to his antise+itis+. 1:. 3t Bas the p&bli#ation of E+ines#&-s politi#al Britings, f&ll of &nabashed antise+iris+, that o##asioned the arti#le by C. (. &dor dis#&ssed at die end of%#hap. $ 0see 1hafir 1987e2. 1;. Bades#& offers an e4tensive array of <&otations fro+ E+ines#& <&ite radi#al in tone and fairly pers&asive of the possibility that Be are dealing Bith an early radi#al thinker 0or else Bith one of those people so #onservative that his #onservatis+ Noins Bith the e4tre+is+ of the left2. Dnly a #lose and ti+e% #ons&+ing st&dy of his total o&tp&t/the r##dition of his #orp&s is past its thirtieth vol&+e/#o&ld ade<&ately establish Bhe&ier Bades#& has given so se% le#tive a sa+ple as to +isrepresent E+ines#&-s evident intentions. 3 have dis% #&ssed E+ines#& Bith sophisti#ated and Bell%read !o+anians Bho differ as to Bhether he Bas or Bas not a <&asi%+aterialist, b&t Bho agree +ore generally that his so#iopoliti#al Britings are ragged and in#onsistent, and diat Bades#& has to strain to get a #oherent set of notions fro+ the+.

18. A#hi+ =ih&, +entioned above, is one instan#eL anodier, fro+ a #o+pletely different paradig+, is =. '. Fheorghi&, #ited often in this book. =ih& has on o##asion said that Bidiin die possibilities open to so#iologists, he saB no point in atte+pting positivist resear#h on hoB people felt abo&t living in high%rise apart+ents, Bhen die dis#ipline-s inp&t Bas restri#ted to dlis polling pro#ess. herefore, he looked to se# Bhere so+ething interesting Bas going on, fo&nd it in literat&re, and pro#eeded to +ake literary #riti#is+ the obNe#t of str&#t&ral% f&n#tional and statisti#al investigation, bran#hing off fro+ there into #onsideration of die fates of +aNor literary fig&res 0see =ih& 19872. Fheorghi& also +ade literat&re die obNe#t of his st&dy, atte+pting to fo&nd a @so#iology of #&lt&re@ thereby, b&t his approa#h Bas Bo&rdie&an and he +aintained a +&#h greater analyti# and affe#tive distan#e than did =ih& 0see Fheorghi& 198;2. 19. he +ost i+portant so#iologist in#lined to history is H. H. 1tahl, Bho #annot be a##&sed of having #hosen this orientation in response to the @#risis@ of so#iology be#a&se he had already been doing histori#al so#iology for de#ades. Bades#&-s re#o&rse to histori#al so#iology Bas do&btless +ore strategi# than 1tahl-s. 65. Additional eviden#e of dlis point fro+ another <&arter #on#erns the #ase of 1tahl, Bho p&blished a broadside against fig&res he vieBed as the interBar right and as an &nfort&nate infl&en#e on the present 01987e2. His targets Bere L&#ian Blaga, =ir#ea Eliade, and other lesser lights. Ehen his book Bas BithdraBn fro+ #ir#&lation a+id a barrage of atta#ks fro+ all <&arters, his reply Bas that he Bas N&st trying to apply a +aterialist analysis to the interBar politi#al.intelle#t&al spe#tr&+ 01tahl 1987X2. his Bas not s&ffi#ient to restore hi+ to anyone-s good gra#es or se#&re p&bli#ation of his several ba#klogg#d +an&s#ripts. 61. hat =ih& took dlis position +ay be p&IIling, given the patriot%+ilitan#y of his defense of Blaga, above. 3t is not entirely #lear to +e hoB diese tBo positions go together, b&t it does see+ that =ih&-s sense of patrioti# +ilitan#y #o&ld en#o+pass antis#+itis+ and anti+agyaris+ Bhile stopping at the e4aggerations ot indigenis+ diat denied Bestern asso#iations. ransylvanians on the Bhole see+ed less prone dian others to this sort of indigenis+L +ore% over, =ih& gave every sign of p&rs&ing a @ ransylvanianist@ #&lt&ral poli#y diat looked +ore than a little askan#e at things e+anating fro+ B&#harest. "inally, 3 believe he #o&ld not per+it the yo&nger Bades#& to define the lineage of a dis#ipline in Bhi#h he hoped to #lai+ pree+inen#e. 796 *D E1 D PAFE1 1:;%1;5

0ive8
1. A version of tills #liapt#r Bas greatly i+proved by #lose readings fro+ several !o+anian intelle#t&als in fo&r dis#iplines, a+ong Bho+ 3 Bo&ld single o&t tor spe#ial thanks 1orin Antohi, Pavel Ca+pean&, =ihai 'in& Fheorghi&, *or+an =anea, *i#ola# =anoles#&, Andrei and 'elia =arga, (irgil *#+oian&, =arian Papahagi, 1t#fana 1teriade, and Ale4andra >&li. l%i#y +av still obNe#t to +y interpretation, b&t it is fa#t&ally +ore a##&rate and ri#her for their attention to it. Additionally, the #hapter benefited fro+ #o++ents or in% for+ation fro+ La&r#n !enton, SoIs#fBoro#I, Andrei BreIian&, 'avid Coh#n, Sane Collier, =ihail lon#s#&, Fail )lig+an, =i#hael 1hafir, =i#hel%!olph ro&illot, 'orin &doran, and =ir##a >a#i&.

6. Consider, for e4a+ple, the folloBing #hara#teriIation ofCea&ses#&, @U3n 19:$V he Bas an ad+irable knoBer oftlie prin#iples of the str&ggle to affir+ the neB, of the !o+anian national essen#eX ofthe Bays and +eans of opti+iIing o&r life inside o&r #o&ntry@ 0 &dor 198:, 18, e+phasis added2. 7. 3n +y N&dg+ent and that of several !o+anians Bith Bho+ 3 have dis% #&sssed these +atters, die +ost e4tre+e proto#hronist state+ents #a+e fro+ s&#h people as 3on Al#4andr&, Pa&l Anghel, E&gen Barb&, *i#olae 'ragos, 3on Lan#ranNan, Po+pili& =ar##a, Hie P&r#ar&, Art&r 1ilvestri, Constantin 1or#s#&, Corneli& (adi+ &dor, =ihai Ungh#an&, and 'an >a+fires#&. Persons Bho took a visible stand on the opposing side in#l&de Dvidi& Croh+alni##an&, Al. 'obres#&, Fheorghe Frig&r#&, =ir##a lorg&les#&, *or+an =anea, *i#ola# =anoles#&, >. Drnea, Ale4andr& Pal#olog&, Andrei Ples&, E&gen 1i+ion, Al. 1t#fanes#&. Persons appearing to liav# a position that is either +ore +oderate or +ore e<&ivo#al in#l&de Adrian 'in& !a#hi#r&, 1olo+on =ar#&s, philosopher Constantin *oi#a 0see #hap. ;2, and perhaps poet Adrian Pa&nes#& 0Bho, in a fight Bith (adi+ &dor, +ade so+e p&bli# state+ents dis#repant Bith those of his erstBhile proto#hronist allies2. 3 have read state+ents of vario&s sorts by all these people, b&t those of the proto#hronists are espe#ially Bell s&++ariIed in a set of intervieBs #ond&#ted and p&blished by 3li# P&r#ar& 0198:2. o ease a##ess for others Bishing to fol% loB this dis#&ssion, 3 have over#ited this so&r#e in preferen#e to the +&lti% t&dino&s neBspaper arti#les in Bhi#h proto#hronists stated their vieBs. o si+% plify #itations of this so&r#e in the te4t, 3 have not given die na+es of those Bho &ttered a parti#&lar state+ent e4#ept Bhen it is espe#ially i+portant to signal the a&thor-s identity. Here ar# the page n&+bers asso#iated Bith parti#&lar intervieBs fro+ Bhi#h 1 have #ited, Pa&l Anghel 07$/9$2, =ihai LSnghean& 0$9%;72, Edgar Pap& 086%992, Al. Dprea 035;%3382, Po+pili& =ar#ea 0119%1752, 'an >a+fires#& 0175%1792, *i#olae =anoles#& 0195%1992, 3on Lan#ranNan 0199%1:52, =ann 1ores#& 01;5%1812, 3on 'od& Balan 0676%6912, 1olo+on =ar#&s 0696%6$62, AL Andritoi& 06$7%6:92, *i#olae 'ragos 0719% 7762, Art&r 1ilvestri 07:9%7;$2. P&r#ar&-s #olle#tion is Borth a f&rther Bord ot gossip. An antiproto#hronist Bith Bho+ 3 dis#&ssed it said that the originals of +any of these intervieBs *D E1 D PAFE1 1;1 i1;9 797 Bere so o&trageo&s in their atta#ks on die Eriters- Union, a #onstit&tionally legiti+ated organiIation, dial the press to Bhi#h the book Bas s&b+itted first ref&sed it o&tright and then Bas press&r#d into a##epting it, b&t only after #&t% ting so+e intervieBs and toning doBn others. he #olle#tion is, therefore, #en% sored relative to its already%p&blished in#l&sions. 9. 1ee #hap. 9, #on#erning die proto#hronist #ol&+n abo&t @short%Bave ps#&do#&lt&re.@ $. *early all parti#ipants in the proto#hronis+ debates Bere +enL 3 therefore &se the +as#&line prono&n thro&gho&t +y dis#&ssion, Bith feB e4#eptions. :. hese ar# English translations for the !o+anian periodi#als !o+ania li% terara, (i#H.a ro+a+as#aX 1e#ol&l %GG, 3.&#eafar&l, 1apta+ina, and Pla#ard. ;. A##ording to one of +y asso#iates, the proto#hronists did respond, in the for+ of a pa+phlet p&blished in 3taly by e+igre losif Constantin 'raganL 1 have not seen this pa+phlet. 8. his silen#e inf&riated proto#hronists, Bho #o+plained that @s#orn,

indifferen#e, or silen#e #on#erning proto#hronis+ indi#ates an attit&de that is not tr&ly intelle#t&al@ 03. Constantines#& 19;;, 92 and that @silen#e is not... a sign of #riti#al +orality b&t is i++oral and &na###ptably #li<&ish@ 0Pa&nes#& 1986\, 1$2. 9. =any of the essays in Pap& 19;; do not +ake an a#tive proto#hronist #ase b&t si+ply arg&e the +erits of one or another great !o+anian Briter. he essays tend to pres&ppose a single aestheti# standard a#ross all #&lt&ral and te+poral #onte4tsL the +eaning of a Bork in its ti+e and pla#e is less i+portant for Pap& than the fa#t of #ertain stylisti# or the+ati# priorities/as Bhen he arg&es that nine years before (i#o, often seen as a pre#&rsor of !o+anti#is+, the !o+anian Cant#+ir Brote si+ilar things, or that a Briter of the 1895s &sed a @psy#hoanalyti#@ te#hni<&e on his heroine de#ades before "re&d. Pap& #redited hi+self, in#identally, Bith nothing +ore than the label @pro% to#hronis+@L he Bas genero&s in a#knoBledging the inspiration ofodiers, par% ti#&larly >a+fires#& 019;5, 19;$2. 15. 3 have this infor+ation fro+ a for+er +e+ber of die staff of that No&rnal. 11. 3t see+s &nlikely that Pap& presented his thesis Bitli this in +ind. hose Bidi Bho+ 3 dis#&ssed his dieory all agreed that he Bas relatively apoliti#al, had had die idea for so+e ti+e, and &nBittingly got #a&ght &p in its #onse<&en#es. he fo&r antiproto#hronist Briters Bith Bho+ 3 dis#&ssed Pap& at length all took a s&rprisingly prote#tive attit&de toBard hi+. Dne e4pressed hi+self vividly, as folloBs, @Pap& is bla+eless in all dlis, a tragi# fig&re, really. He-s an old +an Bho #an-t get o&t of the sit&ation he finds hi+self in and didn-t intend Bhen he started o&t. He-s very s+art, and he had interesting ideas that Bere pi#ked &p and ab&sed by others. He Bas a real thoro&ghbred beforeL noB he-s been trained to Balk ba#k and forth in a #age in die Party-s Ioo.@ He #an be a##&sed of opport&nis+ only in that, having lost his &niversity position in his pri+e, he +ay have resented his la#k of dis#iples and Bas all too happy to find hi+self so&ght after and #ited by so +any ad+irers. 16. 3t is signifi#ant that this sort of state+ent Bas being +ade N&st as die 799 *D E1 D PAFE1 1;9%189 a&sterity progra+, Bith its restri#tions on i+ports and on spending foreign #&r% ren#y for anything b&t essentials, Bas be#o+ing a big iss&e in !o+ania. he proto#hronists- #&lt&ral anti#olonialis+ th&s a##o+panied !o+ania-s near%total e#ono+i# dependen#e on o&tside poBers d&ring die de#ade of the 1985s. 17. 3n this respe#t translations have a +aNor role @as +eans of sy+boli# a##&% +&lation and i+propriation, per+itting in the end the a##o++odation of the lo#al #&lt&ral #ir#&it to die pra#ti#es of international e4#hanges and indire#tly easing the prod&#tion of-&niversality@- 0Fheorghi& 198;, 6$2. 19. 1o+ehoB en+eshed in the <&estion of i+itations and foreign i+ports Bas the +atter of plagiaris+, at least three #ases having been bro&ght by anti% proto#hronists against proto#hronists, 3on Fheorghe, for plagiariIing fro+ Lao% seL Corneli& (adi+ &dor, for stealing an arti#le that appeared in the U.1. E+bassy p&bli#ation 1inteIis%, and E&gen Barb&, for having plagiariIed fro+ vario&s Bestern and 1oviet Briters in one of his novels. 1$. Pa&l Hare 019882 and other e#ono+ists arg&e that so#ialist syste+s tended to treat e4port/foreign trade in general/as a resid&al se#tor, Bhi#h s&pple+ented internal b&dgeting b&t Bas not +ade an integral part of e#o%

no+i# planning fro+ the very start. 0 he pri+ary e4#eption, H&ngary, proves the r&le.2 his probably offers an apt #hara#teriIation of !o+ania-s e#ono+y &ntil the debt #risis hit !o+ania in all its severity 0abo&t 19852, +aking e4port against foreign #&rren#y the batde%#ry of the leadership. 1:. his is a #lear referen#e to the style of the +ass +eetings held by the one% ti+e @#o&rt tro&bador,@ poet Adrian Pa&nes#&, Bhi#h +any saB as bearing a strong rese+blan#e to *aIi +ediods of +ass +obiliIation. 0Having attended one s&#h +eeting, 3 do not find the #o+parison +ispla#ed.2 Pa&nes#& Bas re% p&ted to have +ade fab&lo&s s&+s of +oney thro&gh these +eetings, enabling hi+ to live in an e4pensive +ansion and drive a =er##des. Pa&nes#&-s Bas one of those fa#es shoBn on television d&ring the 1989 rebellion, hastening his Bay to seek asyl&+ 0vainly2 at the U.1. E+bassy. 1;. Dne +ight see proto#hronis+-s e+phasis on priority as #hanging die bases for eval&ating literary prod&#ts fro+ a +arket%based to a #o++and style. 3t transfor+ed the lang&age of literary #riti#is+ fro+ a lang&age of <&ality/a #over ter+ for +arketability, Bhi#h traditional #o++and e#ono+i#s Bere not very s&##essf&l at ga&ging/to a lang&age of priority, so+ething that #o++and e#ono+ies #o&ld +ore easily handle, alongside s&#h #o&ntables as siIe, Beight, and n&+ber 0see *ove-s dis#&ssion of hoB o&tp&ts ar# assessed in #o++and e#ono+ies U*ov# 1985, 9:%156V2. 18. Dne Briter e4plained to +e that after years in Bhi#h his novels Bere p&blished in editions of 6%7555, he had &n&s&al diffi#&lty getting his neBest +an&s#ript thro&gh #ensorshipL b&t Bhen it Bas approved after +onths of ne% gotiation, the press printed die novel in 6:,555 #opies so as to +ake +oney on it, after all the tro&ble it had #a&sed. he book Bas sold o&t in three days. A story like this Bo&ld not have been possible in the days before @self%finan#ing.@ 19. Personal #o++&ni#ation fro+ 1t#fana 1teriade, a resear#her Bho spent years on s&rveys #on#erning these iss&es. 65. =y &nderstanding of this s&bNe#t has benefited fro+ #onversations Bidi several !o+anian Briters, bodi inside and o&tside !o+ania, and fro+ Fabanyi-s &sef&l st&dy 019;$2, &pon Bhi#h +y s&++ary draBs very heavily. *D E1 D PAFE1 189%18; 79$ 61. Atta#hed to this, b&t separate, Bas die Literary "&nd, thro&gh Bhi#h Briters #o&ld obtain loans for e4tended periods to #over ti+es Bhen they Bere engaged in lengthy proNe#ts or Bere having tro&ble p&blishing their Borks. Al% tho&gh the very fa#t of having a loan e4erted its oBn for+ of +oral press&re after a Bhile, p&shing Briters to +ake #o+pro+ises so as to p&blish so+ething and earn +oney to pay off the loan, die e4isten#e of this #&shion Bas a very i+portant #a&se of the relatively great politi#al independen#e and infl&en#e of the #o++&nity of Briters in so#ialist !o+ania. he f&nd and its #ontrib&tion to Briters- independen#e also +ade leadership Bithin the Eriters- Union relatively poBerf&l, in #o+parison Bith leadership in other areas of #&lt&re. he Unions of Co+posers and Artists had si+ilar f&nds, b&t neither had die +e+bership and infl&en#e of die Briters. 66. 1o+e Bo&ld #all it the @refor+ist@ fa#tion, +eaning those Bishing to #hange the line p&rs&ed by the Party at any given ti+e. 3 avoid dlis ter+, for @refor+ist@ and @#onservative@ enter too readily into Bestern N&dg+ents that are not Bholly apt or helpf&l to &nderstanding Bhat Bas going on. 67. 1hafir arg&es that in C#a&s#s#&-s spee#hes on #&lt&re, there is good evi%

den#e for his ret&rning to so#ialist realis+ Bell before 19;1, as early as 19:8 01hafir 1987Y, 91;2. Altho&gh 3 have no reason to do&bt this, 3/along Bith nearly all !o+anian intelle#t&als Bidi Bho+ 3 have dis#&ssed diese +atters/ &se 19;1 as die beginning of die #hange diat Bas #onsolidated by 19;9. 69. Eriters per#eived the i+pa#t of die S&ly theses very fast, as is evident fro+ spee#hes given at a Central Co++ittee Plen&+ held in *ove+ber of 19;1, fo&r +onths after C#a&s#s#&-s spee#h, at Bhi#h the speakers Bere draBn largely fro+ ed&#ation and the arts. 6$. E&gen Barb& had been given he Eeek in 19;5L Adrian Pa&nes#& be#a+e #hief editor of he "la+e in 19;7 and began holding his +ass +eetings thenL *i#olae 'ragos, for+erly on the board of the Party-s Co&di neBspaper, be#a+e editor of he =orning 1tar in 19;9 01hafir 1987e, 669%752, folloBing a period of &nstable and #olle#tive editorships. he #hange Bas espe#ially noti#eable at he =orning 1tar, Bhere in the early 19;5s an innovative gro&p of refor+ist Briters #hallenged the literary establish+ent to in#rease die sophisti#ation of its =ar4is+L &nder 'ragos, it soon #a+e to rese+ble the +ain Party p&bli#ations and ho&sed ele+ents pre#isely die opposite of those inhabiting it before. hese three +agaIines togedier had a reported Beekly printing of 0in the order above2 ;$,555, 179,978, and 9,911, in 19;7 0Balan 19;$, 76%792, totaling al+ost 665,555 or abo&t one #opy per 155 inhabitants. 3n the sa+e year, die #ir#&lation of three +aNor national p&bli#ations of die opposing side totaled abo&t 69,$55, or one per ;$5 inhabitants 0tBo of diese three are +onthliesL 3 have divided their +onthly totals by 9 to a#hieve a fig&re #o+parable to that for the others2. 3 have no fig&res for later years. 6:. he fas#inating story of the 19;; and 1981 Eriters- Conferen#es, as re% ported to +e by people Bho Bere present, is longer than +y a##o&nt #an a# % #o++odate. 3n brief, the insisten#e of Union leaders prod&#ed se#ret ele#tions for #onferen#e delegatesL the antiproto#hronists/far +ore n&+ero&s dian the proto#hronists/not only saB to it that no proto#hronists Bere ele#ted dele% gates b&t also eli+inated fro+ the governing #o&n#il all persons Cea&a#s#& Bas

79: *D E1 D PAFE1 188%655 knoBn to have #onsidered as possible presidents 0&ntil 1981, the president Bas alBays @ele#ted@ by the governing #o&n#il fro+ a+ong its +e+bers2. 3n 19;;, not even Bith Cea&s#s#&-s personal es#ort Bas Central Co++ittee +e+ber and proto#hronist E&gen !arb& ad+itted into the hall. C#a&ses#&-s interferen#e in die sele#tion of the leadership in 1981 #a&sed several i+portant Briters to re% sign fro+ the #o&n#il and the Union. 6;. 3 take the position in this Bork that val&es are so#ially defined in any sphereL th&s, 3 do not ask, in this dis#&ssion, hoB literary val&es relate to the prod&#tion of s&rpl&s%val&e, in =ar4-s sense. 68. Fheorghi& 0198;, 992 also arg&es that literat&re is the site of the largest sy+boli# a##&+&lations 0as #o+pared Bith philosophy or so#iology2 be#a&se it so s&##essf&lly nat&raliIes #&lt&ral prod&#tion/that is, it links #reative Borks Bith @the geni&s of the people,@ so+ething to Bhi#h other for+s of intelle#t&al a#tivity are less s&s#eptible. Perfe#t e4e+plifi#ation of this point, in +y vieB, is the very #o++on !o+anian saying @!o+an&l e nas#&t poet.@ or @ he !o+anian is a born poet.@ Dne finds in the Britings of spe#ialists and nonspe#ialists alike endless eff&sions abo&t the very spe#ial <&ality ot !o+anian poetry, its &n%translatability, its s&periority to the poetries of other lang&ages, its organi# #onne#tedness Bith the so&l of tli# people. o se# !o+anians as born poets links !o+anian identity Bith #&lt&red and literary #reation, par e4#ellen#eL it +akes those #reations a ta#t of nat&re rather than a pheno+enon to be analyIed so#io%logi#allyL and it sets &p a nationalist standard by Bhi#h a##&+&lations of literary val&es +ay @nat&rally@ take pla#e. 69. his Briter-s reply links the #on#erns of 19$5s @dog+atists@ Bith the @a#sthetiIing@ #on#erns of his opponents in the 1985s as if the tBo gro&ps Bere one, thereby #onstr&#ting a @dog+atis+@ that +i4es gro&ps and iss&es fro+ different ti+es. 75. 1in#e N&ries Bere set by the governing #o&n#il of die Eriters- Union, do+inated by antiproto#hronists, this Bas a legiti+ate #o+plaint. 71. A+ong the benefits of priIe%Binning Bere de#reased proble+s Bith #ensorship and a degree of politi#al i++&nityL by #onferring visibility, priIes enabled Briters to +obiliIe so+e s&pport if di#y fell afo&l of the regi+e 0this +ay apply, for e4a+ple, to for+er dissident Pa&l Fo+aL se# his 19;9 +e+oirs2. 1&#h is #ertainly the ease Bith priIes granted o&tside !o+ania, like die H#rder PriIe that do&btless helped poet Ana Blandiana to Beather the stor+ folloBing her p&bli#ation of so+e very #riti#al poe+s in the Binter of 1989/198$. 76. he s&bNe#t of the 'i#tionary is a very sore spot Bidi people in the liter ary #o++&nity, several of Bho+ vol&nteered their vieBs on it to +e Bitho&t any provo#ation. 3 liave synthesiIed their largely #onsistent opinions into a single a##o&nt. 77. 3n P&r#ar&-s intervieBs, it Bas generally he hi+self Bho s&ggested a plot against r#editing #ertain BritersL so+e of his proto#hronist interlo#&tors agreed Bith his opinions b&t otii#rs of die+ pointed to the <&ite obNe#tive diffi#&lties of editing one or another Briter-s Bork. "or a reNoinder to proto#hronist a#% #&sations abo&t delayed reeditions, see Drnea 198$Y. 79. 3n the interests of a##&ra#y, 3 sho&ld note that a+ong the first to re% introd&#e the f&ll poeti# #orp&s of E+ines#& Bas antiproto#hronist 3on

*D E1 D PAFE1 651%65$ 79; *#goit#s#&, and the first to dis#&ss the proble+ati# philosopher Blaga Bas old leftist 0@dog+atist@2 Dvidi& Croh+alni#ean&. 7$. !eeditions also offered a s&bstantial +eans of histori#al revisionis+, Bhi#h Bas an additional #le+ent in the @re#over2- of die national patri+ony@ of Bhi#h they Bere part. A r##dition +ight e4#ise #ertain passages Bitho&t indi#ating the+, or add footnotes diat s&bstantially altered the hitherto a##epted reading of a Bork. An o&tstanding e4a+ple of this is 3li# Bad#s#&-s r##dition of historian *i#ola# lorga-s 1968 he Evol&tion of the 3dea of Liberty 0lorga 198;2, in Bhi#h a 6:7%page te4t is a##o+panied by 1$; pages of #o++entary having, in the opinion of antiproto#hronist revieBer Drnea, a de#idedly #&rrent agenda 0Drn#a 19882. 7:. 3t is i+possible to <&ote Bakhtin on do&ble%voi#ed dis#o&rses Bitho&t being a#&tely aBare of Bhat one is doing. o re+ain tr&e to die spirit of his Bork, dier#fore, 3 +&st a#knoBledge diat 3 have taken the senten#es folloBing the ellipsis fro+ a paragraph that pre#edes the first several senten#es CU&ot#d. 3 #an find no reason to think Bakhtin Bo&ld disalloB the last senten#es as a #on % #l&sion to the others. 7;. "or e4a+ple, the editors of the Borks of interBar philosopher Con%standn !ad&l#s#&%=otr& and literary #riti# E&gen Lovin#s#& held very definite politi#al positions abo&t the Bay @their@ a&thors sho&ld be regarded, positions diat persons of opposed pers&asion disagreed Bith. he +atter of reeditions th&s Noins the <&estion of rereadings, dis#&ssed above, both for+ing i+portant ele+ents in die a##&+&lation of #&lt&ral a&thority. 78. An e4#hange betBeen antiproto#hronist A. jtefanes#& 019812 and pro% to#hronist >anifires#& 01986a, ;2 reveals #o+petition to appropriate #onte+% porary !o+anian novelist =arin Preda 0d. 19852 into their respe#tive gene% alogies, ea#h of the tBo #lai+ing Preda as 0respe#tively2 a @+odernist@ and a @traditionalist.@ "ro+ the sa+e e4#hange it appears that there Bas a #o+parable str&ggle to appropriate poet *i#hita 1tanes#& 0d. 19872. hese e4a+ples shoB diat it Bas not only pre#o++&nist #&lt&ral fig&res Bho had #&lt&ral a&diority it Bo&ld be desirable to appropriate. 79. P&r#ar& added one of his rare editorial footnotes to reiterate this affir% +ation in itali#s, @UEVe #ongrat&late hi+ Bith all o&r hearts for the fa#t diat/ as he has de#lared to &s/his profession is patriotis+@ he e4#hange shoBs @patriotis+@ as an obNe#t of str&ggle a+ong literati. 95. Dne very Bell%pla#ed Briter Bith Bho+ 3 dis#&ssed this #lai+ed diat Cea&s#s#& be#a+e enthralled Bith proto#hronis+ by die +id%to%late 19;5s and, Bhen die energy of so+e of its protagonists began to flag, personally in % sisted on +ore. Eith this, proto#hronis+ be#a+e a part of the state do#trine, this Briter said, as #an be readily seen if one #o+pares the #ontent of Cea&s#s#&-s +aNor spee#hes on #&lt&ral the+es Bith the #ontent of pro% to#hronist Britings. Dn the basis ofdiis Briter-s report, it Bo&ld see+ that the leadership Bas for#ed to ba#k the proto#hronists p#rliaps +ore f&lly dian it +ight have Bished, on#e its oBn +an, E&gen Barb&, Bho had been raised &p tro+ a +odest ba#kgro&nd to +e+bership in the Central Co++ittee and edi% torship of +aNor books and p&bli#ations, Bas proved g&ilty of plagiaris+. he Party leadership #o&ld not afford to have its +an held &p as a #o++on thief and

798 *D E1 D PAFE1 65:%65; #a+e to his defense, #e+enting proto#hronis+ to its oBn fate in a very dire#t Bay. 91. Ehen an antiproto#hronist-s revieB of a proto#hronist te4t Bas ref&sed, he reported to +e, the reason given hi+ by the head #ensor Bas, @ he interest of die Party leadership is to have !o+anian #&lt&re be as old as possible.@ 96. he *ational History =&se&+ in B&#harest presents the visitor Bith n&+ero&s i++ense Ball +aps treating the history of !o+anians Bithin borders larger than any histori#ally e4isting !o+anian state, they r&n fro+ the for+er !o+anian%!&ssian border on the !iver 'niestr Bell into the territory of present%day H&ngary. hese sa+e +aps appear in vario&s books p&blished &nder the highest Party aegises, of Bhi#h die best e4a+ple is one a&thored by the president-s brother, 3li# Cea&ses#&, in 1989. 1e# also #hap. : beloB. 97. his affinity +ay have so+ething to do Bith Bhy the proto#hronists Bere generally res#&ed fro+ above in the n&+ero&s s#rapes they got the+selves into, Co+eli& (adi+ &dor, Bhile Briting for the paper "ree !o+ania pla% giarised an arti#le fro+ the +agaIine p&blished by the A+eri#an E+bassy in B&#harestL yet the editor-s de#ision to fire hi+ Bas #o&nter+anded, and he re% #eived a Nob at higher pay Borking for another paper. Proto#hronists Pa&l An% ghel and Hie P&r#ar& Bere involved in a s#andal #on#erning +isappropriation of foreign #&rren#y fro+ a No&rnal they editedL yet altho&gh they Bere fired, their #areers pro#eeded apa#e. Barb&-s #onvi#tion for plagiaris+ lost hi+ his s#at on the Central Co++ittee b&t not his editorship of he Eeek or his infl&en#e Bith the organs of #ensorship. 99. 3 a+ gratef&l to Fail )lig+an for this phrasing. 9$. 1hafir also s&ggests 01987\2 that proto#hronis+ possibly penetrated high Party de#ision%+aking, rather than being prod&#ed by the+. 9:. 3f the gro&p Bere si+ply red&#ible to the Party leadership, it Bo&ld not have s&ffered e#lipse in 1987 despite #onne#tions to the Central Co++ittee, failed to Bin seats so&ght in Party #o&n#ils in 1989, or had +ore than one ini% tiative resisted by the +aNor theoreti#al No&rnal of the Central Co++ittee 0Era so#ialists2. 1o+e antiproto#hronists told +e +e Party leadership Bas a#t&ally fearf&l of this gro&p, oBing to the in#onvenient finan#ial #onse<&en#es of the 3sraeli response to p&bli#ation of C. (. &dor-s antise+iti# arti#les 0see 1hafir 1987e, and dis#&ssion beloB2. 3t +ight be +ore a##&rate to say that there re% +ained so+e in +e Party leadership Bho resisted proto#hronis+, even if others favored it. he for+er gro&p spoke o&t #learly over the latter in !ad&les#&-s 0198:2 atta#k on proto#hronis+. 9;. Dne is str&#k by the Bords &sed by so+e proto#hronists, readily open to a psy#hologi#al reading/for e4a+ple, the overe+phasis on !o+anians- self% reNe#tion and the need to re#tify it 0see, e.g., >a+fires#& 1986Y, 92. he biographies of several pro+inent proto#hronists shoB signs of dislo#ation and +ar%ginaliIation, b&t a st&dy of antiproto#hronists +ight Bell shoB the sa+e. 98. An e4a+ple is =orning 1tar #riti# Art&r 1ilvestri, Bho began his #areer hanging o&t in the editorial halls of +e 0antiproto#hronist2 No&rnal Lite+ry !o % +ania, his Bork p&blished rarely be#a&se of the n&+bers of top%not#h Briters seeking to p&blish thro&gh this and related #hannels. 1ooner than +any, per% haps, he lost patien#eL he =orning 1tar offered hi+ not N&st easy p&bli#ation *D E1 D PAFE1 659%615 799

b&t his oBn Beekly #ol&+n. Eithin tBo years he had be#o+e a Iealo&s pro% to#hronist, t&rning his pen to deno&n#ing the e+igre @traitors@ in Paris and =&ni#h, #alling into <&estion the #&lt&ral r#pres#ntativeness of these propaga% tors of @pse&do#&lt&re@ and thereby invalidating their #lai+s to #&lt&ral a&% thority, and e4#o++&ni#ating its holders as @#&lt&ral terrorists@ and traitors 0see his intervieB in P&r#ar& 198:, 7:9%7;$2. 0"or #ertain e+igres he +ade an e4#eption, regarding their Bork as so !o+anian that @one Bo&ld think it had been Britten here a+ong &s@ UP&r#ar& 198:, 7;1V. hese e4#eptions in#l&de, +ost visibly, Borld%fa+o&s =ir#ea Eliad# of the University of Chi#ago, knoBn not only for his brillian#e, not only for his asso#iation Bith rightist gro&ps in the pre#o++&nist period, b&t also/as reported to +e by Eliade-s #lose friend, philosopher Constantin *oi#a/for his having &rged Pap& on to greater boldness in his proto#hronis+.2 =any antiproto#hronists regarded 1ilvestri as a dire#t agent of the !o+anian se#&rity poli#e, sin#e his #ol&+n p&blished infor% +ation to Bhi#h only the intelligen#e for#es had a##ess 0the pre#ise lo#ation of !adio "ree E&rope-s broad#ast toBers, e.g.2 and reg&larly na+ed e+igres Bhose na+es the #ensors &s&ally barred fro+ print. 99. 3 #hoose this arti#le for translation be#a&se it is the shortest of its kind. 1i+ilar to it b&t lengthier, and ri#her in religio&s i+agery, is &dor-s introd&#% tion to his set of essays 0198:2. >a+fires#&, as Bell, had n&+ero&s revealing pie#es in vario&s No&rnals fro+ the latter part of the 1985s. $5. he !o+anian Bord _tartan^ p&ns on an ins&lting ter+ for SeBs Utirtan^. $1. Here, for e4a+ple, is the #on#l&ding paragraph of the prefa#e to &dor-s book of essays, @He is the broB of !o+ania, the #o&ntry invested hi+ UBith offi#eV to g&ard its f&llest and #leanest 3deal. hro&gh deep roots the !o+anian people prepared itself to spro&t hi+ forth, and he spro&ted at the right ti+e, in the +ost t&rb&lent #ent&ry. Ee love hi+ and belong to hi+, Be folloB hi+ in everything he does, thro&gh his +o&th speak all the great fo&nders Bho sa#ri% fi#ed the+selves for the people ...@ et#. et#. 0198:, 92. he organi# i+ages sho&ld be borne in +ind for the analysis that folloBs. $6. 1hafir sees the arti#le as o##asioned by the i++inent iss&e of a vol&+e of E+ines#&-s politi#al Britings that Bas f&ll of antise+iti# state+ents and Bas s&re to stir &p tro&ble 0see 1hafir 1987ff2. $7. he religio&s lang&age opening the arti#le probably ai+ed to +ake the reader-s religio&s sensibilities +ore re#eptive to the antise+iti# atta#k at the end, b&t in other pie#es by &dor and by others, espe#ially poet 3on Ale4andr&, religio&s lang&age o##&rred Bith no s&#h obvio&s e4planation. Dne is a+aIed to find in the prefa#e to &dor-s 198: book referen#es to die @ ree of Life,@ the UlastV @s&pper,@ !o+anians @#r&#ified along the Carpathians,@ bread that @t&rns to blood in the +o&th,@ et#. Dn the Leader-s birthday, poets s&#h as Pa&nes#& p&blished 0&nsigned2 hy+ns f&ll of religio&s lang&age. Dne Briter s&ggested to +e that +&#h of this originated Bith >a+fires#&, Bho attended dieologi#al se+inary, be#a+e interested in ByIantine history, and responded to the S&ly theses of 19;1 by s&ggesting that +ore rit&al of the ByIantine sort Bo&ld help to prod&#e an ideologi#al #li+ate s&ited to &n<&estioning obedien#e. he &se or religio&s lang&age +ay also have been an atte+pt to sat&rate the se#&lar 7$5 *D E1 D PAFE1 615%617 *D E1 D 1-AF!1 61$%61; 7$1

rhetori# of nationalis+ Bith i+agery fro+ the one other instit&tion that has long e4er#ised a viable #lai+ to having prote#ted and defended !o+anians over #ent&ries of oppression by o&tsiders, die Drthodo4 Ch&r#h. his Bo&ld not +ean @nationaliIing@ die great reserves of #&lt&ral a&diority held in religio&s instit&tions, for diese have been nothing if not national for #ent&ries, b&t e4propriating or at least deval&ing it, by broadening the #onte4ts in Bhi#h religio&s lang&age appeared, beyond the religio&s o##asions #ontrolled by die Drdiodo4 hierar#hy. $9. An e4a+ple is several arti#les p&blished in 1981 and 1986 stating or insin&ating that *or+an =anea, a !o+anian Briter of SeBish des#ent, #annot Brite !o+anian properly Ui.e., he is a foreigner and +assa#res the national tong&e/other #riti#s disp&ted thisV, atta#ks patrioti# Briters, is godless Uat least, not of o&r god2, fre<&ents taverns Uirrelevant to his BritingV, and sets hi+self &p as a grand pro#&rator of !o+anian letters. 01ee, inter alia, Pa&nes#& 1986\ and b, P&r#ar& 1986ft and bL &dor 1986L >a+fires#& 1986YL se# also 1liafir 1987e for other #ases ofantise+itis+.2 his atta#k res&lted fro+ =an#a-s having given p&bli# reb&ttal to &dor-s @3deals@ 0=an#a 19812. $$. 3 +&st e+phasiIe on#e again that 3 refer here to the +ost Iealo&s par% tisans of proto#hronis+. here Bere +any !o+anian intelle#t&als attra#ted to die idea Bho did not parti#ipate in die e4tre+es to Bhi#h so+e #arried it. A feB persons intervieBed by P&r#ar& Bent o&t of their Bay to resist his atte+pt at dividing the literary field into Barring #a+ps. $:. Drgani# i+agery Bas not the +onopoly of the proto#hronists, b&t diev &sed it #ontin&ally and so+eti+es to e4#ess, often also i+plying that dieir op% ponents Bere *D organi#ally tied to the people and the #&lt&re. Dne +ight #all this a high @organi# #o+position@ of #&lt&ral #apital, noting that it gave a fairly high rate of profit in Cea&ses#&-s !o+ania. $;. Ehether or not identities ar# tho&ght #apable of #hange is, in fa#t, die basi# iss&e disting&ishing @ra#ist@ fro+ other syste+s of #lassifi#ation. A so#iety need not e+phasiIe phenotypi# differen#es to be ra#ist in its i+pli#ations, altho&gh virt&ally all so#ieties that do so are aptly #alled ra#ist. Even #&lt&ral differen#es #an be tho&ght of as inborn and i++&table 0Eall+an 19852, a good e4a+ple being nineteenth%#ent&ry H&ngarian attit&des toBard !o+anians 0Hoff+an 19872. By this #riterion, proto#hronis+ is a ra#ist for+ of national ideology. $8. Fail )lig+an-s Bork on the @1ong of !o+ania@ #o+petitive festivals Bill do +&#h to #larify and a+end o&r &nderstanding of die +e#hanis+s ot #&lt&ral politi#s dis#&ssed in this book 0se# )lig+an =12. $9. Bo e4a+ples +ay help #larify hoB dlis sort of e4#l&sion pro#eeded, 012 Eriter Pa&l Fo+a reports that d&ring his final days as a !o+anian dissident in 19;;, a self%styled @patriot@ took hi+ aside and said to hi+, @Co& have a Bay of &psetting yo&rself and a Bay of doing things that are not spe#ifi#ally !o+a% nian.@ o Fo+a-s protesting that despite his having had a non%!o+anian grandpar#nt, he feels !o+anian, the +an replied, @"ine, let-s grant that yo& are !o+anian, b&t yo& a#t like a non%!o+anian@ 0Fo+a 19;9, 7$2. 1hortly di#re%aft#r Fo+a Bas e4pelled fro+ !o+ania. 062 Eriter *or+an =an#a, +en% tioned in n. $9, gave a p&blished intervieB in Bhi#h he spoke his +ind abo&t the proto#hronists. heir revenge #a+e in 198:, Bhen the Eriters- Union aBarded hi+ a priIe and they had s&ffi#ient poBer Bith tli# Co++ittee for C&l% t&re to have die priIe res#inded. hey had already in effe#t @e4pelled@ hi+ fro+ die Briting #o++&nity Bith the insin&ation that he did not knoB the

lang&age properly. his and odier for+s of harass+ent #ontrib&ted to =anea-s de#ision to e+igrate.

Si:8
1. he first of these is <&oted by !obert !. )ing 01985, 12L the se#ond is fro+ *an#y Heer 019;1, 112. 6. his #hapter draBs lieavily &pon a paper previo&sly p&blished &nder a pse&dony+ 01i++onds%'&ke 198;2. 3n n. 1 of that paper 3 a#knoBledged the +any friends and #olleag&es Bho so kindly #ontrib&ted to it, and 3 Bill not list die+ again here. 3 add +y dianks to U.1.%based !o+anian historian 'in& C. Fi&res#&, Bho Bas good eno&gh to read this #hapter for a##&ra#y, and to =ihai 'in& Fh#orghi&, Bho offered so+e helpf&l #o++ents on 1i++onds%'&ke 198; and #a&sed +e to rephrase parts of the present version. 3 Bish to affir+ that the several !o+anian s#holars Bith Bho+ 3 dis#&ssed the events re#o&nted in this paper bear no responsibility for +y interpretation, developed Bell after die fa#t. Unlike so+e of the other #hapters in this book, the present one Bas not seen in draft by s#holars in !o+ania, nor have 3 dis#&ssed its #ontent Bith any of the prin#ipal #hara#ters, as 3 did Bith #liaps. $ and ;. 7. his state+ent holds tr&e for =ar4ist%Leninist regi+es in general, b&t different ones varied in the e4tent to Bhi#h di#y atte+pted to #ontrol history and p&t it to their spe#ifi# &ses. he !o+anian, 1oviet, and East Fer+an Parties +ade +ore of an effort to dire#t history than did the r&lers of Poland, say, or H&ngary 0se# Heer 19;1L 3ggers 19;$, 179%17$2. 9. 1ee, for e4a+ple, )#ndall 019$$, app. 332 on revisionis+ in 1hakespeare-s portrait of !i#hard 333, "#rro 0198$, 69%6$2 on revisionis+ in debates abo&t Soan of Ar#, and Craig 0198;2 for a nonte#hni#al dis#&ssion of battles Bidiin Fer+an historiography of the hird !ei#h. $. A b&rgeoning literat&re on the @invention of tradition@ and the @prod&#tion of history@ +akes these points for vario&s nonso#ialist so#ieties. 1e#, for e4a+ple, Adhia+bo 198:L Breen 1989L Cohen 198:L Father#ole and LoBen% thal 1995L HobsbaB+ and !anger 1987L Sohnson et al. 1986L LoB#nthal 198:L ro&illot 1989. :. he literat&re on so#ialist historiography is rather large, in#l&ding Bla#k 19$:L 'avies 1989L 'el#tant 1988L 'irlik 19;8L Feorg#s#& 1981L Heer 19;1L Hr&by 1985L )ing 19;7 0#haps. 9%112L )os+as 1989%198$L Pre#an 198$L !ev 1989L !&ra 19:1L 1herlo#k 1988L 1ht#ppa 19:6L 1killing 1989L 1voboda 198$L (alkenier 198$L and Ealker 1987. ;. he resear#h proNe#t fro+ Bhi#h this book is an offshoot Bas originally entitled @Historians Constr&#t die *ation@ and Bas intended to shoB 7$6 *D E1 D PAFE1 61;%665 *D E1 D PAFE1 665%66$ 7$7 hoB history%Briting helped to for+ !o+anian national #ons#io&sness. 3t is al% ready apparent to +e that the s&bNe#t is too large for a single book. 8. 012 '&ring the 19;5s there Bas a signifi#ant and very noisy shift in e+% phasis fro+ the 'a#o%!o+an to a 'a#ian origin theory in #ertain Party and historiographi#al #ir#lesL it had not #o+pletely died doBn even in the late 1985s. 3t o##asioned bitter disp&tes a+ong historians and Bo&ld +ake an e4#ellent #ase st&dy of the prod&#tion of history in !o+ania. 3 do not p&rs&e it here be#a&se, &nlike the e4a+ple 3 sele#t, 3 Bas present for none of the a#tion

0indeed, one of the +ain players died of a heart atta#k the day 3 Bas to intervieB hi+A2, and +y e4perien#e is that one needs dire#t e4pos&re to +ake sense of the Britten te4ts. 062 he 1985s saB +oves to rehabilitate =arshall 3on Anton#s#&, the leader of fas#ist !o+ania d&ring Eorld Ear 33, noB being presented as a great and +is&nderstood patriot rather than as a traitor. here Bas also a <&asi%proto#hronist interpretation of !o+ania-s role in the Bar, Bhi#h arg&ed that oBing to the 1999 #o&p that shifted !o+ania fro+ the *aIi allian#e to the other side. Eorld Ear 33 ended si4 +onths earlier than it Bo&ld have otherBise, Bhi#h spared E&rope +&#h #ost and bloodshed 0see 3. Cea&ses#& et al., 198$L the !o+anian edition of this Bork Bas entitled 'o&a s&te de Iile +#d devre+e ` Bo h&ndred days sooner^ 2. 9. hese #lai+s Bere not +ade in offi#ial rhetori#, Bhere H&ngarian politi#ians alBays s#r&p&lo&sly adhered to the e4isting bo&ndaries. B&t al+ost any #as&al #onversation Bith H&ngarians, both in H&ngary and living abroad, reveals Bidespread senti+ent that ransylvania rightly belongs to the+. 15. 1in#e 3 do not read H&ngarian ade<&ately, 3 #annot offer +y oBn as% sess+ent of this Bork. hose relatively ne&tral s#holars Bith Bho+ 3 have dis% #&ssed it find it generally of high s#holarly standards b&t feel that to e4pe#t H&ngarians to a##ept the !o+anian vieB is Utopian, the tBo sides Bill si+ply never agree on this +atter. 11. 3t is +y personal opinion that Be Bo&ld be Brong to see this rea#tion as instigated first and fore+ost by Cea&aes#& or #entral Party #ir#les. 3 believe a #onsiderable role Bas played by a historian Bho appears beloB, the dire#tor of the History 3nstit&te in die ransylvanian #apital of Cl&N, 1tefan Pas#&, Bho a s#ant feB +onths before had nearly lost his post. )noBing of the leadership-s e4tre+e +agyarophobia, 3 s&spe#t that this historian sent e4aggerated Bord to B&#harest #on#erning the #ontent of the H&ngarians- History of ransylvaniaX th&s positioning hi+self as die g&ardian of the *ation-s honor and fir+ly se#&r% ing his dire#torship thereby. His signat&re Bas pro+inent a+ong the very first p&blished arti#les to deno&n#e the H&ngarians- @#ons#io&s falsifi#ation of history.@ 16. As of 1995, to +y knoBledge there had been no f&ll%s#ale reb&ttal b&t so+e Borks relevant to the proble+ had e+erged, s&#h as Pas#& and 1tetanes#& 198; and ". Pa#&rari& 1988. he for+er Bas a #olle#tion of arti#les p&blished in the pop&lar press even before the appearan#e of the H&ngarian vol&+es, #riti#iIing arti#les and revieBs in H&ngarian p&bli#ations betBeen 1987 and 198$. 17. Fiven the in#reasingly disastro&s sit&ation in !o+ania d&ring the late 1985s, 3 think it not o&t of the <&estion that s&#h a +obiliIation of ar+y ener % gies +ay have ai+ed at red&#ing the likelihood of a +ilitary #o&p. he +anner of C#a&ses#&-s overthroB in 1989 #ertainly shoBs diat s&#h a #on#ern Bo&ld not have been +ispla#ed. 19. A detailed des#ription of #hanges in the infrastr&#t&re of history%Briting #an be fo&nd in F#org#s#& 1981. 1$. here has been a long%standing division of labor, Bidi historians based in Cl&N and lasi #on#entrating on the histories of ransylvania and =oldavia, leaving to B&#harest the history of the third region and the organiIation of general syntheses. Be#a&se ea#h region-s history re<&ires different lang&ages, different do#&+entary so&r#es, and different theoreti#al #onstr&#ts, this division +akes #onsiderable sense, only for the history of ransylvania, for

e4a+ple, does one absol&tely have to knoB H&ngarian and Fer+an and &se the #on#ept&al repertoire of Eest E&ropean fe&dalis+. he habit of Party historians fro+ die #enter to sti#k their fingers into +atters like the !o+an% 'a#ian Bars 0Bhi#h @belong@ to ransylvanians2 or other events spe#ifi# to die provin#es dreB #onsiderable ire fro+ those Bhose t&rf Bas being infringed. 1:. 'eletant 01988, 8:2 e4plains die o&t#o+e differently, also by referen#e to r&+or, as the res&lt of intervention by die 1oviet a+bassador, #on#erned abo&t die possible disappearan#e of an 3nstit&te for Party History. D&r different preferen#es refle#t tBo ti+e%Born e4planatory strategi#s in !o+ania/invoke die 1oviet Union, and invoke personal a+bition. 'eletant also s&ggests diat interinstit&tional rivalries Bere strong in the late 1985s. he red&#ed inter% feren#e of the 1oviet Union in Eastern E&rope-s internal affairs by the late 1985s #a&ses +e to prefer an internal instit&tional e4planation. 1;. 3 oBe this interpretation to B&#harest so#iologist *i#olae Fheorghe. Eviden#e for the redefinition of history-s obNe#t and its transfor+ation into @die entire people@ is the fo&nding in 1989 of a neB histori#al No&rnal. 1tr&ggle of the Entire People 0L&pta 3ntreg&l&i Popor2. 18. Be#a&se die ter+s &sed by parti#ipants are #entral to +y arg&+ent, 3 have adhered stri#tly to the folloBing #onventions. 3 have narroBed the per+issible translations of the !o+anian Bord +s#oala/Bhi#h #overs the +eanings of the English Bords @rebellion,@ @&prising,@ and @revolt@/to @&prising@ and Bill e+ploy this Bord Bhenever 3 a+ paraphrasing so+eone Bho &sed !o+anian ras#oala. 3 e+ploy @revol&tion@ in paraphrasing those Bho &sed die !o+anian Bord revol&fie. o keep the voi#e of narrator distin#t fro+ diat of the a#tors, 3 &se @revolt@ or @rebellion@ Bhen 3 s&++ariIe on +y oBn a##o&nt. 19. he folloBing des#ription is entirely of the debate abo&t HoreaL there is no pla#e in +y a##o&nt for Bhat @a#t&ally happened.@ English%lang&age readers interested in finding o&t so+ething abo&t Horea-s revolt +ight #ons&lt Edroi& 19;8L =&sat and Ardelean& 198$, 655%678L 1hapiro 19;1L and (erdery 1987, 97/15:. he tBo Borks dis#&ssed in the te4t are fo&nd in tlie bibliography &nder Pas#& 1989 and Prodan 19;9. 65. he +anner of +y parti#ipation +ade it al+ost i+possible for +e to intervieB +e+bers of die a&dien#e, hen#e 1 #annot be s&re of its #o+position and #an only report the g&esses of those aro&nd +e and of the #onferen#e organiIer. he n&+bers present Bere so+eBhat s+aller on the first dayL abo&t 1$5 people Bere at the session on @Horea-s Uprising in 'o#&+ents of the i+e,@ Bhi#h 3 attended and Bhi#h ran #on#&rrently Bith another session on the first 7$9 *D E1 D PAFE1 66$%669 day, b&t the a&dien#e for the plenary session on the se#ond day Bas +&#h larger. 61. he Bel#o+ing spee#h addressed the a&dien#e as @+en of s#ien#e, art, and #&lt&re, resear#hers into the history of the people and the Party, +&se&+ personnel, ed&#ators fro+ aro&nd tlie #o&nty.@ 66. Ehen this #hapter Bas Britten, it see+ed Bise to &se the na+es of as t#B persons as possible, lest +y a##o&nt #a&se people diffi#&lty. As this book goes to press, tlie instability of the politi#al sit&ation +akes it pr&dent to retain that strategy. 3n general in this book, 3 na+e only those persons Bhose p&blished Borks 3 #an #iteL the present #hapter relies on parti#ipation and on intervieBs

+ore than any of the others. 67. hro&gho&t parts of the session, the b&II of #onversation in the roo+ Bas groBing. 3 learned that this did not ne#essarily signify inattention, hoBever, Bhen 3 overheard the e4#hange of three people sitting behind +e, Bho t&rned o&t to be s&bengine#rs in +ining, @Eho-s he #iting noBK@ @=ar4. He-s saying it-s a revol&tion if there-s an &lti+at&+.@ his s&ggested that the o&tlines of the arg&+ent, if not, perhaps, all its obs#&re details, Bere obvio&s to at least so+e of the nonspe#ialist #roBd. '&ring the break, hoBever, a rando+ #onver% sation #onfir+ed that others in the #roBd Bere #o+pletely &naBare of tlie theoreti#al signifi#an#e of the arg&+ent over &prising or revol&tion. 0=y vi#ti+ Bas a history tea#her fro+ the n&rses- aides- s#hool, Bho had fo&nd Pas#&-s idea of revol&tion a #onvin#ing for+&la2. 69. Ehen 3 asked Professor Prodan Bhy lie did not offer a #o&nterarg&+ent to his opponent in print, he replied, @3f a gypsy stops yo& to pi#k a <&arrel Bhen yo&-re on yo&r Bay so+eBhere, do yo& Baste ti+e arg&ing Bith hi+K *o.@ his #o++ent ill&strates perfe#tly tlie so&r relations betBeen these tBo longti+e ene+ies Bho do+inated the field of ransylvanian history, and it gives die reader a sense of Bhy Professor Pas#& +ight have Banted to #o+e &p Bith so+ething neB to say on the s&bNe#t that Prodan had +ade his oBn. 6$. his final A#ade+y sy+posi&+ +arked Bhat +any on the @&prising@ side saB as the defeat of the @revol&tionary@ position. DrganiIed by Professor Pas#&, the session in#l&ded papers by several highly respe#ted Cl&N s#holars, their papers all titled Bith @revol&tion@ in the printed progra+ 0it e+erged that Pas#& had set die titles2. Presiding over the session Bas the neBly ele#ted head of the !o+anian A#ade+y. o Pas#&-s #hagrin, only his personal hen#h+an and he hi+self &pheld the arg&+ent for revol&tion, the others adhering to the other vieB and speaking of @&prising@ despite their titles. 6:. 3n the late 1965s, novelist Livi& !ebr#an& p&blished a fi#tionaliIed history 0Craif&r&l U he Prin#e^2 abo&t Horea-s rebellion, presented fro+ a pop&list point of vieB and shoBing Horea-s !o+anian peasantry as nationalist, +&#h as in Pas#&-s vieB in 1989. A##ording to =ihai 'in& Fheorghi&, to Bho+ 3 oBe this infor+ation, !ebrean&-s obNe#tive Bas to provide histori#al legiti+ation tor the interBar Peasant party, at the sa+e ti+e presenting Horea as @e+peror@ 0tr&e to the i+age of nineteenth #ent&ry folk poetry2. Fheorghi& believes these histori#al roots Bere very i+portant to Pas#&-s +anip&lation of Horea as a nationalist. 6;. Pas#& Bas dire#tor of the 3nstit&te of History ill Cl&N, held the #hair ot *D E1 D PAFE1 669%676 7$$ history at the University of Cl&N 0of Bhi#h he Bas also re#tor for eight years2, headed the *ational Co++ittee of !o+anian Historians, the Co++ission of Historians of !o+ania and H&ngary, and the history se#tion of the !o+anian A#ade+y, of Bhi#h he Bas been a +e+ber sin#e 19;;. He Bas a #andidate +e+ber to the Central Co++ittee of the !o+anian Co++&nist Party for a n&+ber of years. 68. 1o+e eviden#e for this is that Hie Cea&s#s#&-s 1989 book on ransylvania reprod&#ed +&#h of Pas#&-s arg&+entation abo&t ransylvanian history. 69. "or debates in history, the notion of @#&lt&ral a&thority@ that is appropriate for #haps. $ and ; is better #alled @s#ientifi# a&thority,@ sin#e Briters, #riti#s, and philosophers prod&#e @#&lt&re,@ Bhile historians prod&#e @s#ien#e.@ 3 have

+odified the horiIontal a4is of fig. 9 to refle#t this. 75. 3n tBo #ases, 3 #o&nted as @revol&tionaries@ persons Bho also appeared in print Bith @&prising,@ the latter in #onte4ts Bhere 3 believe other &sage Bas spe#ifi#ally s&ppressed 0se# 1i++onds%'&ke 198;, 61:%61;2. 3 also #o&nted as @&prising@ one person Bhose p&bli# spee#h #aref&lly avoided all ter+s b&t Bho in #onversation +ade it #lear Bhat side he Bas on. 71. 1ee =&sat and Ardelean& 198$, 617%619 0the English translation2, and #o+pare Bith Pas#& 1989, 6;/68. 76. Arrayed in a 646 table/leaving otf those Bhose &sage os#illated/these data are statisti#ally signifi#ant 0#hi%s<&are 66.61, p f.5512. 77. he perfor+an#es of fo&r politi#al fig&res, three of the+ at the #onferen#e, Bo&ld see+ to <&estion this proposition. he fo&rth, Cea&ses#&, liad tBo spee#hes &sing noB one ter+, noB the other. Ee #annot knoB Bhether this Bas si+ple in#onsisten#y on his 0or his spee#hBriters-2 part, his having reverted &nthinkingly to the Bell%knoBn older for+&la, or his p&rposely Bishing to +aintain tBo optionsL all ar# pla&sible e4planations. B&t the e4isten#e of #o+peting sa#red te4ts #reated #onf&sion and roo+ for +ane&ver f&rther doBn the hierar#hy and ill&+inates die perfor+an#e of the three politi#al fig&res at the #onferen#e. 3t is likely that die first party se#retary &sed @&prising@ be#a&se !o+anian politi#ians &nani+o&sly regarded B&#harest as the only site of ideologi#al innovation, all odiers folloBing at a respe#tf&l distan#e. Until it sho&ld be #lear diat this <&ite +aNor #hange in the labeling of a +aNor histori#al event liad passed die test of a##eptan#e, #a&tion Bo&ld be the Bisest #o&rse. his spee#h nevertheless sat #leverly on die fen#e by not #hanging the label b&t a##epting +any points of the @revol&tionary@ arg&+ent. Eith its flanks Bell prote#ted, it set the tone for the 1e#retary-s tBo s&bordinates. 79. 3 +ade tBo Bholly &ns&##essf&l atte+pts to intervieB Professor Pas#& abo&t his book. Altho&gh he alBays treated +e Bith e4e+plary #o&rtesy, he +ade it #lear that he did not Bish to dis#&ss this topi#. 3 have #onsiderably +ore infor+ation on the attit&de of Professor Prodan, Bhose ref&sal of a p&bli# reply a##o+panied an agitated vol&bility on the s&bNe#t in private. 7$. Party historian 3on Popes#&%P&r&ri 01987, 182, in des#ribing the re% +arkable #ontrib&tions +ade to !o+anian historiography by "irst Historian *i#olae Cea&ses#&, observes that the peasant +asses &sed to be seen as a gro&p having no histori#al f&n#tion, a theory ai+ed at #alling into <&estion the very e4isten#e of the largely peasant !o+anian people. Cea&ses#& has restored to 7$: *D E1 D PAFE1 677%678 !o+anians their history, he says, by shoBing the+ to have had +aNor revol&% tionary possibilities. his @val&able insight@ +ay have inspired Pas#&-s book. 7:. East Fer+an historians arg&ed si+ilarly over the 1$6$ Peasant Ear, so+e #rypti#ally s&ggesting, as in the arg&+ent over Hor#a, that Fer+an so#iety Bas +ore progressive than the 1oviet Union 0see Ealker 19872. 7;. "or +ore infor+ation on the e#ono+i# #onte4t relevant to s&#h a +essage, se# CroBth#r 1988, 197. 78. 1ee, for e4a+ple. !oller 19$6, 6;$. 79. Horea Bas not the only lo#&s of anti%H&ngarian s#holarly a#tivity in the 1985sL other e4a+ples #an be fo&nd in the p&bli#ation !o+ania litera+, n&+% bers 99 and $1, 'e#e+ber 1989, and, earlier, in s&#h Britings as Lan#ranNan

1986. 95. 3ndeed, +any historians spoke of a Calendar 1trategy of p&bli#ation, pi#k yo&r topi#s by opening yo&r #alendar, not by p&rs&ing the+es that interest yo&. 91. o +ake sense of this and of die e4a+ple in the ne4t paragraph re<&ires a re+inder of Bhat Bas entailed in +e @self%finan#ing@ of #&lt&ral instit&tions in Cea&ses#&-s !o+ania. 3n the e#ono+i# #risis, state s&bsidies to enterprises in die #&lt&ral field Bere red&#ed and dieir dire#tors s&bNe#ted to insistent finan#ial press&re 0Bitho&t, hoBever, being given the a&thority to +ake signifi#ant independent de#isions2. 1&#h organiIations as +&se&+s, theatres, and libraries Bere e4pe#ted to #over at least part of their #osts thro&gh dieir re#eipts. Personnel Bo&ld be #&t if they failed to do so. 96. =any persons +ade no &se of die opport&nities in Horea-s #elebration, and not all Bho fig&red in the events did so opport&nisti#ally. Prodan, it Bill be re+e+bered, p&blished his book on Horea several years before the bi#enten% nialL he did not enter dire#tly into the s&bse<&ent festivities. Fiven Bidespread opport&nisti# &se of Hor#a, +any Bere draBn into the fray Bho Bo&ld other% Bise have gone abo&t their b&siness. 97. A hilario&s ane#dote abo&t the str&ggle to redefine history, passed on to +e by =ihai 'in& Fheorghi&, +akes this point very ni#ely. 3n the early 1985s, a ra+b&n#tio&s intelle#t&al played a tri#k on a for+er #olleag&e of his, Bho had be#o+e a high f&n#tionary in the history division of the =inistry of Ed&#ation. He invented a debate/ostensibly organiIed by die paper for Bhi#h he Borked /on hoB !o+anian history Bas being presented in s#hool +an&als, and he sent an offi#ial invitation to his #olleag&e. Ehen the latter proved &nable to attend, he Bas pro+ised a #opy of the res&lts of the debate 0also, of #o&rse, +ade &p2. he @res&lts@ in#l&ded #o++ents by a n&+ber of very i+portant historians, e4tre+ely #riti#al of ed&#ation in history/the do+ain of the vi#ti+, Bho noB despaired that he had not been present to defend the position of his +inistry and had not foreBarned his s&periors of this reorientation. he vi#% ti+-s rea#tion is very revealing, it shoBs hoB &tterly pla&sible he fo&nd it that a #&lt&ral +agaIine #o&ld organiIe a debate on history at Bhi#h big%ti+e offi#ial historians #riti#iIed offi#ial history, never s&spe#ting that the Bhole thing had been +ade &p. 99. he +ilitary personnel Bho spoke or Brote abo&t Hor#a pla#ed spe#ial e+phasis on this +atter. *D E1 D PAFE1 678%6$6 7$; 9$. "or e4a+ple, @W Vhe ar+y has alBays been on die side of the entire people in fighting foreign aggression thro&gho&t +e #ent&ries@ 03. C#a&s#s#& #t al., 198$, 972, or @ he s&##ess of the !o+anian ins&rre#tion Bas possible thro&gh the intertBining of politi#al%+ilitary preparedness, #aref&lly organiIed and led by the !o+anian Co++&nist Party, Bith #onditions spe#ifi# to die !o+anian tradition of the entire people-s Bar@ 0ibid., 1512. 9:. 3 #an attest to Horea-s e4isten#e in peasant +inds in tBo village #o++&% nities, as Bell as a+ong &rban pop&lations. 9;. Akho&gh the a&dien#e +ost afte#t#d by this display Bas not large, in Horea-s #ase, 3 Bo&ld arg&e that the repetition of events s&#h as this, involving other heroes in other pla#es, Bo&ld event&ally have draBn in a fairly large n&+ber of !o+anians, affe#ting die+ in a si+ilar Bay.

98. 1ee Baylis 019;9, 182. he obvio&s #ontrast is, of #o&rse, Bith Poland in the late 19;5s. 99. Be#a&se of +y #han#e sele#tion of te4ts to e4e+plify the vieBs of persons 3 Bo&ld pla#e near die politi#al a4is of fig. 9, Prof. 1tefan 1tefan#s#& appears Bith that gro&p disproportionate to the position 3 believe he in fa#t o##&pied in !o+anian historiography. Historians Bith Bho+ 3 gossiped abo&t +e+bers of the profession generally regarded 1tefanes#& as the only historian having high politi#al stat&s Bho, despite this, defended &npoliti#iI#d s#ientifi# a&thority, insofar as his position per+itted. 0As +e+ber of the Central Co++ittee and head of the +ost i+portant non%Party history instit&te, he Bas often not alloBed free +ane&ver2. 1 Bish by this footnote to a#knoBledge the integrity Bith Bhi#h 3 believe he so&ght to a#<&it hi+self, in die i+possible position he Bas pla#ed in d&ring the 1985s. $5. he s#holar Bho told +e of this disposition saB it as an aspe#t of@ro% +anianiIation@ be#a&se it s&ppressed the H&ngarian and Fer+an pla#e%na+es one Bo&ld nor+ally &se for ransylvanian history prior to the tBentieth #en% t&ry. 3 see it also, hoBever, as part of the flattening of ti+e. $1. 3 dis#&ss additional aspe#ts of the flattening of ti+e/in food lines, for e4a+ple/in (erdery 1991. $6. 3 refer here to s&ppression of the Borks of poets Ana Blandiana and =ir#ea 'ines#&, for e4a+ple, in 1988.1989, along Bith interdi#tions on p&bli#ity for literary #riti# Ale4andr& Paleolog&, a#stheti#ian Andrei Ples&, and others Bho had the effrontery to protest the leadership-s poli#ies. $7. Personal #o++&ni#ation. he arti#le Bas p&blished in !o+ania lite++ 1; 0'e#e+ber 652, 16%17 and Bas #osigned by A. Fh. 1av&. $9. A##ording to neBly established anthropologi#al #anons of openly a#% knoBledging die disr&ptions ethnographers introd&#e into their field sites, 3 p&bli#ly re#ord here the fa#t diat, having dis#overed by #han#e that the A+eri% #an Histori#al Asso#iation Bas ele#ting several neB honorary +e+bers, 3 orga% niIed the #a+paign for Prodan-s ele#tion. =y reasons for having done so Bere +y great respe#t for the <&ality of his s#holarship, +y personal atta#h+ent to hi+, and +y &nderstanding, as arg&ed in the te4t, that s&#h a#knoBledg+ent Bo&ld offer fri#tion against the #onstant narroBing of die field of histori#al pro% d&#tion + !o+ania. 3n other Bords, 3 interposed into the !o+anian #onte4t 7$8 *D E1 D PAFE1 6$7%6$; +y A+eri#an preferen#e tor pl&ralis+ over #on#entrations of poBer, a prefer% en#e shared by those in Bhose behalf 3 a#ted. All these @politi#al@ reasons not% Bithstanding, by every professional standard of A+eri#an history%Briting. Pro% dan-s ele#tion Bas absol&tely deserved. $$. Both other historians and Prodan hi+self #o++ented to +e &pon his having a#<&ired sy+boli# properties. $:. As Bith so +any things in !o+ania, 3 #annot verify this a##o&nt of the nonappearan#e of the reatise. 3 re#eived very si+ilar a##o&nts fro+ a n&+ber of historians, hoBever, and have presented a #o+posite of the+ here.

Seven8
1. 1 a#knoBledge here a debt to Pav#l Ca+pean&, =ihai 'in& Fheorghi&, Cla&de )arnoo&h, Fail )lig+an, and 1tefana 1teriad#, Bho #o++ented on drafts of this #hapter, and also to Andrei and 'elia =arga, Bho first bro&ght

*oi#a to +y attention and Bho gave +e #opies of die tBo books dis#&ssed in die #hapter 0Bhi#h Bere virt&ally i+possible to find, otherBise2. hese persons and +any others Bith Bho+ 3 dis#&ssed the *oi#a 1#hool gave +e not only data b&t also interpretations that entered into +y oBn and #annot be ade% <&ately attrib&ted. 3 a+ also gratef&l to several s#holars, parti#&larly 1orin An% tohi and Al. >&b, Bho provided +e Bith +any of the revieBs and other bibli% ography s#attered a+ong vario&s +agaIines. Parts of this #hapter have appeared as an D##asional Paper of the EoodroB Eilson Center-s East E&ropean Progra+. 6. =y interpretation rests on Lii#ean& 1987, 198$, and 198;L Ples& 1988L Paleolog& 1985L a large n&+ber of #o++entaries and revieBsL &ninfor+ed readings of *oi#a 19;$, 19;8 and 198;YL and #onversations Bith a variety of persons, bodi #entral parti#ipants in the events and interested bystanders. 3 also had tBo brief +eetings Bith *oi#a in the s&++er of 198;, totalling abo&t tBo%and%a%half ho&rs, before 3 had read any of these Borks. At the ti+e, 3 Bas interested in *oi#a-s relation to the interBar national dis#o&rse, not in his #on% te+porary signifi#an#e. Ehile these tBo +eetings #ontrib&ted little to the dis% #&ssion of the present #hapter, they did give +e a feel for this fas#inating and el&sive personage and for his link Bith the proble+ of national identity. 7. 3n the #ir#le #losest to *oi#a 3 #o&nt Fabriel Lii#ean&, Andrei Ples&, and 1orin (ier&L those in parti#&larly signifi#ant relations Bith the+ in#l&de Al#% 4andr& Paleolog&, ho+as )leininger, (asil# 'e+. >a+fires#&, and (i#tor 1toi#hita 0noB living in Fer+any2, +ost ot Bho+ fig&re in Letters. 3t is to these people, despite differen#es a+ong the+, that 3 refer Bith the ter+s @*oi#a 1#hool@ or @*oi#ans,@ for all Bere to&#hed in transfor+ative Bays by their e4pos&re to *oi#a and to the others. =y l&+ping of these persons &nder a single label obs#&res +any i+portant differen#es a+ong the+ in style, politi#s, and relation to *oi#a. 3n the #ir#le of persons relatively Bell disposed to the proNe#t of the gro&p 3 in#l&de 1tefan A&g&stin 'oinas, !ad& En#s#&, Andrei Pippidi, *D E1 D PAFE1 6$8%6:9 7$9 *. 1teinhardt 0despite a nasty revieB2, and a n&+ber of the @antiproto#hro% nists@ of #hap. $, s&#h as *i#ola# =anol#s#&, =ir#ea lorg&les#&, et#. A+ong those favorably disposed to *oi#a b&t hostile to the p&rposes of the others are a n&+ber of proto#hronists, s&#h as E&gen Barb&, Pa&l Angh#l, 3on CoNa, 'an >a+fires#&, and 3on 1troe. 3 do not deal Bith #o++entaries fro+ the !o+a% nian e+igre #o++&nity, Bhi#h helped to bring +ore attention to the *oi#ans and thereby broadened their internal and e4ternal a&dien#e. 9. Eliade, noB de#eased, e+igrated fro+ !o+ania in the 1995s and ended his days as a Borld%renoBned philosopher of religion at the University of Chi#agoL Cioran be#a+e the epigone of a skepti#al philosophy in Paris. $. Ale4andr& Paleolog&, Bho kneB *oi#a inti+ately, insists that *oi#a Bas never in fa#t as +&#h &nder die spell of lones#& as Bere die rest and that his asso#iation Bith fas#is+ 0+entioned beloB2 Bas brief and i+p&lsive, rather than a +atter of #onvi#tion. Dthers Bill, of #o&rse, #ontest this vieB. :. he story told +e by *oi#a-s friend *. 1teinhardt Bas that d&ring the period of for#ed do+i#ile, *oi#a o##asionally es#aped to B&#harest, Bliere he +et Bith a gro&p of friends to read and dis#&ss prohibited Borks, s&#h as the Britings of the by%th#n%e+igre Eliade and Cioran. '&ring this ti+e Cioran p&blished in

Paris a @Letter to a 'istant "riend,@ addressed to *oi#a, Bho Brote a reply that he sent o&t to the Eest together Bith so+e +an&s#ripts. he pa#kage Bas inter#epted and the entire gro&p Bas arrested, tried, and given prison ter+s of &p to tBenty%five years. ;. Be#a&se so +&#h of #&lt&ral interpretation in Cea&ses#&-s !o+ania/and espe#ially that #on#erning *oi#a/Bas politi#iIed to greater or lesser degree, one sho&ld sit&ate =arga hi+self in relation to the *oi#a gro&p. =arga is Bhat 3 Bo&ld #all a @friendly o&tsider,@ a philosopher Bith e4tensive training in Best% ern philosophi#al tho&ght 0like *oi#a and his folloBers2 b&t strongly infl&en#ed by lines in #onte+porary Fer+an philosophy different fro+ those ot the +ain *oi#ists, the "rankfort 1#hool and Hab#r+as 0Bith Bho+ lie has Borked e4tensively2, rather than Heidegger and h#r+#ne&ti#s, so infl&ential in *oi#a-s #ir#le. his affiliation leads =arga to a##ent&ate the #riti<&e of +odernity in *oi#a-s Bork. he intelle#t&al genealogy =arga #o+piles nevertheless #onfor+s Bell Bidi diat s&ggested by *oi#a-s p&blished Borks and by his oBn pre% sentation of hi+self 0see *oi#a 198;\2. 'espite the differen#es in their basi# #on#erns, =arga a#knoBledges *oi#a as !o+ania-s +ost syste+ati# and deep philosophi#al thinker of the postBar period. 8. =arga ref&ses, hoBever, to se# *oi#a-s ref&ge in Plato as a ret&rn to pr#% +od#rn ti+es b&t interprets hi+, rather, as a post+odern thinker, his sol&tions differing fro+ both the se#ond Bave of post+odern thinkers 0s&#li as Hei% degger2 and the +ost re#ent Bave 0s&#h as 'errida and Lyotard2 0=arga 1988, 9;2. 9. 3 a+ gratef&l to Cla&de )arnoo&h for this phrasing. 15. Ehen 3 asked *oi#a hoB die interBar <&estions #on#erning die @national essen#e@ had fo&nd their Bay into his present Bork, he gave the folloBing a##o&nt, after he e+erged fro+ prison, he realiIed that the neB #li+ate pre% #l&ded Bhat he had hoped to #ontrib&te to +etaphysi#s, and then in +&sing over proble+s of lang&age 0a dire#tion having a+ple pre#edent both in Heideg% 7:5 *D E1 D PAFE1 6:9%6:9 ger and in !o+anian s#holarship2, he dis#overed that interesting philosophi#al proble+s #o&ld be p&t via ling&isti# +eans. Attention to ethni# <&estions th&s enabled hi+ to p&blish his +etaphysi#s in a disg&ised for+, and he soon fo&nd that this for+ bro&ght hi+ far greater s&##ess than he had ever i+agined pos% sible. His reply a##ords Bith his re+ark in hisS&rnal de 3dei 0forth#o+ing2 that !o+aniann#ss Bas si+ply a prete4t, for hi+. Fiven hoB #rafty *oi#a shoBed hi+self in other #onte4ts, hoBever, Be sho&ld bear in +ind that he kneB eno&gh abo&t Bestern s#holarship to knoB Bhat sort of ansBer to give a Best% erner. His ansBer also #onveniently o+itted his having Britten on <&estions of !o+anianness in the 1975s and 1995s, before the #onN&n#t&re of the Cea&ses#& period for#ed this #hoi#e on hi+. 11. Altho&gh one o##asionally fo&nd a short pie#e by *oi#a in =Bnina 1tar, he +ost #o++only Brote for !o+anian Life and Literary !o+ania, both of Bhi#h generally e4#l&ded proto#hronist Britings. 16. Dn the Balls of the philosophy depart+ent in lasi and Cl&N Bere a series of portraits of s&#h persons as Aristotle, Plato, Lao% s#, Conf&#i&s/b&t not =ar4. 0 hese portraits Bere later repla#ed in so+e lo#ations by those of Cea&ses#& and 'a#ian leaders.2 Dne of the +ost &n&s&al e4#hanges in Letters o##&rs betBeen Lii#ean& and his for+er professor 3on lanosi, Bho arg&es for a

tolerant #li+ate in Bhi#h the validity of =ar4ist philosophy Bill be a##epted along Bith the #lai+s of other approa#hesA 17. he So&rnal Bas p&blished in 8,555 #opies and Letters in 1:,555 0the &s&al spe#ialist Bork in philosophy +ight e4pe#t a r&n of $,555L novels generally have +&#h larger ones, often e4#eeding ;$,555 #opies2. 1in#e in !o+ania any book that gets as +&#h attention as these did Bill be read +&#h +ore Bidely than the siIe of its press r&n/one of +y asso#iates g&essed that any #opy Bo&ld pass diro&gh at least ten sets of hands/these fig&res indi#ate at best Bhat the press Bas prepared to risk 0politi#ally2 in #hoosing to p&blish diese books. Both Bere p&blished by Cartea !o+aneas#a, the press of die EritersUnion, Bhi#h had so+eBhat greater editorial independen#e in its sele#tions than did the +aNority of presses. 19. =y #o&nt of seventeen revieBs of the So&rnal did not in#l&de several that appeared early or a n&+ber that appeared Bithin the #onte4t of arti#les on other s&bNe#ts, s&#h as obit&aries folloBing *oi#a-s death in 198;. Aldio&gh the n&+ber of #&lt&ral p&bli#ations in !o+ania Bas <&ite large, to obtain dlis +any revieBs Bas &n&s&alL it +eant that +ost regional +agaIines and the entire spe#tr&+ of the politi#al.#&lt&ral field fo&nd the book Borth #o++ent. 1o+e +agaIines p&blished +ore than one revieB 0e.g., Literary !o+ania2. 1$. !eferen#e to the *inth Congress Bas a f&nda+ental +ove in the rhetori# of those Bho Bished to parti#ipate in Cea&ses#&-s personality #&lt, for it Bas at this #ongress that he Bas for+ally installed as Feneral 1e#retary. 1:. his ter+ does not appear in any of the Britings 3 have #ons&ltedL 3 a+ #oining the e4pression so as not to preN&dge the analysis by &sing a ter+ like proto#hronist, even tho&gh there Bas so+e overlap betBeen persons Bho es% po&sed proto#hronis+ and those Bho defended *oi#a-s national Britings or arg&ed for Bhat 3 #all #dinophilosophy. 3n speaking ofethnophitosophy,@ 3 a+ #reating a #o+posite that did not e4ist as s&#hL it had a+ple pre#edent, hoB% *D E1 D PAFE1 6:9%686 7:1 ever, in the Britings of earlier thinkers s&#h as (asile Parvan and Dvidi& 'ens&sian&. 1;. A good e4a+ple of Bhat passed for @nor+al@ philosophy in the 19;5s is a vol&+e p&blished in 19;9 #alled Philosophi#al hinking in !o+ania oday 0Fhise et al. 19;92, the arti#les #ontaining a +&ltit&de of referen#es to Bestern thinkers and only the +ost perf&n#tory +ention of =ar4ist proble+s, never in a sloganiIing +anner. 18. Altho&gh 3 have not s&ffi#ient spa#e to e+phasiIe it here, a##&sations of @dog+atis+@ did +ore than +erely oppose *oi#ans and +aterialists, having played a +aNor role in for+ing the *oi#a 1#hool itself. Lii#ean& #lai+s to have dis#overed the bea&ty of philosophy only after leaving the st&ltifying for+ of it en#o&ntered in &niversity, and his a##&sations against his @+aterialist@ +entors are a+ong the sharpest in Letters 0198;, 686%6962. hat @dog+atis+@ Bas a Beapon in +e hands of both sets of adversaries #larifies on#e again, as 3 arg&ed in #hap. 9, its i+portan#e as a #ategori#al e4#l&der bearing little relation to the #on#rete details of a person or Bork. 19. =y thanks to =ihai Fher+an for providing +e Bith this te4t. 65. his a##o&nts for the signifi#an#e of th& paidei# +odel in *oi#a-s and his folloBers- progra+L see +y dis#&ssion later in this #hapter. 61. *oi#a shared his +issionaris+ Bid%i the intelle#t&al generation in Bhi#h he

had parti#ipated before Eorld Ear 33, and a si+ilar +issionaristi# spirit had flo&rished in the !o+ania of the late nineteenth #ent&ry. 3n the pro#ess of transfor+ing the nat&re of the intelligentsia, 3 Bo&ld arg&e, so+ething like a for+ of +#ssianis+ has often been prod&#ed, &s&ally by that fra#tion of it Bhose position Bas being #hallenged by other gro&ps and Bhose e4pertise re% <&ired reass#rtion. B&t the +essianis+ of !o+ania-s ninet##n&i%#ent&ry intel% le#t&als and of the interBar period Bere not +otivated by <&ite the sa+e pro% #esses as that of the 1985s, nor by e4a#tly the +e#hanis+s signaled in Ba&+an-s arg&+ent, inappli#able to so#ieties s&#h as so#ialist !o+ania in Bhi#h legiti+ating f&n#tions Bere not ass&+ed by a #ons&+er%oriented +arket. 66. 3t is te+pting to see in this e&logy the #h&r#h-s Noining the #ontest to #ontrol *oi#a, b&t altho&gh so+ething of that sort +ay have been going on, another e4planation offered +e is +ore to the point. he ar#hbishop Bas a good friend of *oi#a-s, and he had a##epted the task of trying to f&lfill *oi#a-s re<&est for b&rial in the her+itage even tho&gh by nor+al +onasti# pra#ti#e *oi#a had no right to be there. His strategy Bas to present *oi#a as a Christian, as leading a life #lose to that of a good +onk/so+ething his highly as#eti# hfestyle fa#ilitated. Eitho&t +aking s&#h an arg&+ent, the ar#hbishop Bo&ld have been sorely e4posed Bith his oBn religio&s hierar#hy/and #o&ld not, in any #ase, have N&stified his presen#e at die b&rial of an ordinary philosopher Bith no #lai+s &pon die #h&r#h. 67. =y point of vieB here rese+bles that ofB&raBoy in his Politi#s of Prod&#tion 0198$2, Bhere he tries to &nderstand Bhy #ons#io&sness of e4ploitation is so +&#h less veiled in so#ialist syste+s. 69. As of 1985/the beginning of the e#ono+i# #risis in !o+ania/3 noti#ed far +ore fre<&ent referen#es to the Bibli#al Apo#alypse a+ong +y village respondents than 3 had in +y earlier visit in 19;9.1 Bo&ld also say i+pression% 7:6 *D E1 D PAFE1 687%688 isti#ally that the sense of &rgen#y a+ong intelle#t&als in#reased then as Bell, b&t 3 have no @proof@ of this. 6$. 3 a+ aBare that the @strategi#s@ and @ta#ti#s@ in the dis#o&rse of persons infl&en#ed by Bo&rdie& and "o&#a&lt are &nderstood not as s&bNe#tively planned by the individ&als Bho e4e#&te the+ b&t as properties of a field of #&l % t&re or poBer/a#torl#ss re<&ire+ents that re+ind one of Pirandello-s #hara#% ters in sear#h of an a&thor. 3 +yself a+ still irre+ediably +ired in the idea of s&bNe#tively relevant so#ial a#tion, lioBever, as this paragraph shoBs. 6:. Here 3 take iss&e Bith a point of vieB Bo&rdie& has not 0to +y knoBledge2 e4pressed in print b&t stated in a #onferen#e 3 attended. "olloBing a pre% sentation in Bhi#h he talked ot the sy+boli# +arket for ling&isti# e4#hanges, he Bas asked Bhat sort of sense an analysis resting on a +arket analogy had for so#ieties in Bhi#h +arkets Bere syste+ati#ally s&ppressed. His reply Bas that this +ade no differen#e. 3 #annot agree. 6;. Altho&gh it Bas Lii#ean&-s phrasing that +ade this a +atter of p&bli# dis#&ssion, there is no do&bt that the paid#i# ideal Bas part of *oi#a-s original intent/see the <&otation abo&t his @1#hool@ at the head of this #hapter. He had also atte+pted on at least tBo prior o##asions to set &p relations of t&telage si+ilar to those he instit&ted at Paltinis. 68. his is not to say that *oi#a-s relation to his dis#iples Bas egalitarian,

Bhi#h it s&rely Bas not. 3 e+phasiIe, rather, the +anner in Bhi#h his a&thority Bas defined and e4er#ised, in #ontrast to the +anner of the regi+e. 69. Dne +anifestation of the debate over philosophy and literary #riti#is+ Bas an arg&+ent as to Bhether Lii#ean& Bas really +ore of a Briter than a phi% losopher, Bhether his books Bere not +ore e4e+plary as literary than as philo% sophi#al te4ts 0e.g., 'obres#& 198;, 16L Paleolog& in Lii#ean& 198;, ;9L =a% rino 198;, :2L one revieBer even analyIed Letters as a novel, pointing o&t its literary str&#t&re and so forth 0Breban 19882. 75. Lii#ean& #a+e #losest to e4pressing so+ething like this Bhen he s&ggested that ne#essary to #&lt&ral #reation is so+e sort of theory, and literary #riti#s do not for the +ost part Bork Bith or prod&#e their oBn theories, they have to borroB fro+ dis#iplines that do prod&#e theory 0se# 198;, 19:%19;2. o rephrase Lii#ean&-s arg&+ent in a fa+iliar +etaphor, he and *oi#a both tended to se# philosophy as the @heavy ind&stry@ of #&lt&ral prod&#tion, an ind&stry that e+ploys the raB +aterials of #ertain other fields and #reates +a#hines 0@theory@2 that ar# essential to prod&#tion Bithin other do+ains. 3n +aking an arg&+ent of this kind, they folloB dire#tly in the tra#ks of #ertain philosophers fro+ the interBar years, +ost notably (asile Ban#ila 0196;2, Bhose vieB 3 presented in #hap. 1. he irony of the Lii##an&%*oi#a variant of this, hoBever, is that they Bere proposing to #onstr&#t this heavy +a#hinery thro&gh a sort of #ottag# prod&#tion, on a +o&ntaintop, involving only a feB Borkers, pre#isely avoiding the +ain &rban #enters of philosophi#al +an&fa#t&re. 71. A Briter Bith Bho+ 3 dis#&ssed these books said that if *oi#a Bere in C#a&ses#&-s shoes, things Bo&ld be N&st the sa+e as &nder Cea&ses#& be#a&se *oi#a-s Bas the sa+e totalitarian spirit. 1o+e +ight add that Cea&s#s#&-s per% sonality #&lt #reated a s&itable environ+ent for *oi#a-s #&lt of hi+self. *D E1 D PAFE1 689%69: 7:7 76. *ote again the e+phasis signaled above, a defense of a kind of e4pertise based on advan#ed st&dy of Bestern #&lt&ral traditions. 77. latters has an aestheti# elegan#e that +y dis#&ssion #annot ade<&ately honor. 3t seeks to a#hieve its ai+ thro&gh the idea that @fro+ often% i+passioned #onfli#ts a p&rer tr&th is born@ 0Lii#ean& 198;, ;2/that is, the book-s +essage Bill be str&#t&red thro&gh dis#ord p&rs&ed Bith passion. A #ertain e+otional tension is set &p at the o&tset by re#ording Lii#ean&-s an4iety over hoB the So&rnal is being re#eived, then folloBing the #riti#is+s and enth&sias+s #o++&ni#ated to hi+. he letters provide tBo e+otional #li+a4es, in the for+ of heated a##&sations and genero&s re#on#iliations 0betBeen Lii#ean& and tBo persons his So&rnal presented in an &nfavorable light2, and a series of intelle#t&al #li+a4es partly linked Bith these e+otional ones. Eithin this str&#t&re, arg&+ent for a pl&ralist strategy e+erges by +aking the parties to a personal <&arrel also represent different positions on die <&estion of philosophy vers&s literary #riti#is+. As Fheorghi& observed in a penetrating revieB, the first <&arrel and its re#on#iliation re#onfig&re the Bhole field of for#es, both ree<&ilibrating the personal relations of tBo +en and restoring the relations of philosophy Bith literat&re and art 01988\, $2. he arg&+ent abo&t philosophy and literat&re is taken &p +ore e4pli#itly so+eBhat later betBeen Lii#ean& and (ier&, and then a se#ond <&arrel and re#on#iliation 0Bith a @lapsed@ philosopher be#o+e poet2 #onfir+s Lii#ean&-s adheren#e to

the re#onfig&red field. 79. Contrib&ting to this idea is not only the fier#e honesty of die #orrespon% dents b&t also the editor-s state+ent at the beginning that @ he o+ission of passages of stri#tly personal nat&re or otherBise &na##eptable has been +arked Bith U. . . S@ 0p. 82/as overt a state+ent of #ensorship as one Bas likely to find in !o+ania, and a sola#e to readers a##&sto+ed to Bondering Bhere so+ething had been left o&t. Lii#ean& Bas proposing, in a Bord, a @Fer+an@ style of #o++&ni#ating in pla#e of !o+ania-s &s&al @ByIantine@ one. 7$. 3 a+ gratef&l to "ran#es "erg&son for pointing o&t to +e this #ontra#t&al pre+ise, rooted in #on#erns of the !o+anti# period, as Bell as for an inspiring dis#&ssion on the <&estion of a&dien#es. 7:. Altho&gh p&blished before Letters, this essay Bas #o+pleted at abo&t the sa+e ti+e and shoBs die effe#ts of the &nifi#ation of philosophy and literat&re in the latter Bork. 'espite +y atte+pt to re+ain so+eBhat distant fro+ die pheno+ena dis#&ssed in this #hapter, 3 have to #onfess that 3 have rarely taken as +&#h delight in an essay/in any field or any lang&age/as 3 did in dlis st&nning pie#e. 7;. "or readers Bho +ay Bonder Bhat is +eant by @#reating an a&dien#e for philosophy,@ it +ay be helpf&l to note d%tat *oi#a-s e4egesis of Hegel Bas p&blished in a printing of 75,555 #opies 0Lii#ean& 1987, 1672/in a #o&ntry having one%tendi the pop&lation of the United 1tates. His !o+anian 1enti+ent of Being EA1 printed in 15,;55 #opies, and his 198; edition of !o+anian Eays of 1peaking Philosophi#ally 0*oi#a 198;:2 in :5,555. 78. he first senten#e of *oi#a-s prefa#e to his book Letters abo&t the Logi# of Her+es reads th&s, @ hese letters are addressed to so+eone, in die hope that Bhen they rea#h die border%#rossing of #&lt&re, they Bill be inter#epted and 7:9 *D E1 D PAFE1 69:%699 perhaps read by a feB +athe+ati#ians, logi#ians and other +agi#ians of naked for+s.@ His first #hapter begins, @ o yo&r #onfession that yo& do not knoB Bhat logi# is, 3 reply that 3 don-t knoB either.@ 01e# *oi#a 198:, $, 11.2 3t is diffi#&lt not to feel that one #o&ld get so+eBhere Bith this treatise on logi#, even if one kneB little abo&t the s&bNe#t. 79. 3 have o+itted fro+ +y already%long s&++ary the +atter of the @fe+inine paradig+,@ Bhi#h Lii#ean& ties to gender divisions in the #reation and trans+ission of knoBledge. 95. Ehen 3 dis#&ssed Letters Bith people Bho had given it a general rather than a philosophi#al or so#iologi#al reading, several said di#y had fo&nd the book &n&s&ally gripping be#a&se all the #ontradi#tory points of vieB Bere so pers&asive. @3-d read one letter and 3-d say, -He-s rightA- and then 3-d read the reply and say -He-s right tooA-@ said one Bo+an in the library 3 fre<&ented. 91. Books of philosophy rese+bled those in history in having so+eBhat +ore instit&tional prote#tion fro+ die +arket than did literat&re or literary #riti#is+. Be#a&se the #hief *oi#ans- instit&tional sit&ation Bas +arginal Bidiin philosophy, hoBever, di#y rese+bled literary #riti#s/in Bhose press their Borks pri+arily appeared. 3n #hap. 7 3 s&ggested that v&lnerability to the +arket +ay have a##o+panied greater tenden#ies to opposition, by Bhi#h arg&+ent die *oi#ans- #onstit&tion of a &nited front a+ong #riti#al philosophers and literati +akes sense. 96. his point, as Bell as the one in the s&bse<&ent tBo paragraphs, Bas

s&ggested to +e by AshrafFhani. 97. 3 have it on good a&thority that these Bo&ld never have been p&blished Bidio&t the assistan#e of persons highly pla#ed in the Party/one of the feB respe#ts in Bhi#h *oi#a-s appeals to a&thority bore fr&it. 99. An &n#haritable a##o&nt of this serial Bas that the @in#redibly laIy Barb&@ saB a Bay of having his #ol&+n Britten for hi+ for a Bhole year Bith +ini+al effort and Bith #ertain in#reases in die sales of his +agaIine. 9$. hese several feat&res of Barb&-s serial +eant that even diose readers Bith Bell%developed @bra#keting pra#ti#es@ 0in Fhani-s phrase2 Bo&ld not get +&#h o&t of the serial/that is, one #o&ld not si+ply ignore Barb&-s #o++ents 0bra#ket die+ off2 and get die tr&e sense of Letters. 9:. "ig&res for its #ir#&lation are hard to #o+e by, as 3 reported in #hap. $L altho&gh it Bas printed in 155,555 #opies in die 19;5s, so+e people told +e diat it Bas doBn to $5,555 in the late 1985s. his Bas, in any #ase, larger than any odier literary p&bli#ation and Bas e4#eeded in sr.k only by die +aNor dailies and by the +ore general #&lt&ral +agaIine he "la+e. 9;. Dne +ight ask Bhy the books of the *oi#ans Bere p&blished, if they Bere s&#h a threat to poBer. he fate of those Bho signed the =ar#h 1989 protest +ade it #lear that one #o&ld go too far, for these a&thors Bere at on#e pla#ed &nder interdi#tion 0di#y Bere @disabled@ as fo#i of #&lt&ral prod&#tion2. Lii#ean& hi+self often Bondered Bhether he o&ght to alloB his Britings to be &sed by poBer, as he ass&+ed +&st be the #ase if his books Bere per+itted to appear /and his prod&#tivity s&ffered, in #onse<&en#e 0he @disabled@ hi+self anti#ipatorily2. Altho&gh 3 #annot ansBer the <&estion of Bhy the books Bere p&blished, 1 Bo&ld g&ess that it had to do Bith hidden s&pport fro+ persons *D E1 D PAFE1 751%717 7:$ high &p in the Party leadership, Bidi str&ggles betBeen the b&rea&#ra#ies of #&lt&re and propaganda, and.or Bith the efforts of p&blishers to pro+ote val&es 0and salable Borks2 that strengthened positions they Bished to defend. 'efenders of the books #o&ld alBays point to a+big&ities in the te4ts that +ade the+ a##eptable or even desirable/s&#h as that die appearan#e of opposition Bo&ld +ake people diink that the #li+ate Bas not, after all, so oppressive, or that the Party Bas strong eno&gh to afford die p&bli#ation of an o##asional provo#ative te4t. Dnly in the #ase of persons Bho had #learly gone too far 0s&#h as by signing p&bli# protests2 Bo&ld editors not try s&#h a defense. 98. 3ndeed, the proble+ of #reating a Borker%intelle#t&al allian#e that had never been forged Bas one of the first to e+erge after 'e#e+ber 1989. A long intervieB Bith Lii#ean& in "ebr&ary 1995 shoBs hi+ preo##&pied Bith pre#isely this proble+ 0see Pavel 19952.

Conc"usion
1. Fratef&l thanks to AshrafFhani, =ihai 'in& Fh#orghi&, and Fail )lig%+an for ideas that entered into dlis #on#l&ding #hapter. 6. he Party line #annot itself be readily predi#ted, hoBever. 3t is not si+ply that the #o++and for+ of so#ialis+ in#lines toBard an offi#ial preferen#e for national ideologyL other things +ay affe#t the leadership-s +ode of #ontrol even Bithin the #o++and for+. 3n die 1oviet #ase, it is likely/die e4perien#e of the late 1995s notBithstanding/diat the 1oviet Union-s +&ltinational

#o+position +ade offi#ial nationalis+ dangero&s as long as a +ono%ethni# entity, the @1oviet *ation,@ had not been s&##essf&lly #onstr&#ted. Ehile national ideology has #ertain #lear affinities for @#o++and@ leaderships, no laB di#tates it of ne#essity. !elian#e &pon it Bill be infl&en#ed by s&#h d&ngs as pree4isting ideologi#al fields, die other options available to a Party leadership, the balan#e of so#ial for#es, and the prior +obiliIation of a so#ialist 0or other2 #ons#io&sness. 7. he 1oviet nationalis+s that res&lt not fro+ s&#h @#&lt&ral@ #a&ses b&t fro+ efforts to &nseat entren#hed high b&rea&#rats Bere anodier very i+portant for+ of national pheno+ena in Forba#hev-s 1oviet Union, b&t die +aterial presented in this book does little to ill&+inate die+. 9. 3n the absen#e of fa#tional splits Bithin the !o+anian party, Bhi#h +ight have given internal #riti<&e so+e leverage, in the absen#e of a +ore highly developed Borking%#lass #ons#io&sness Bith its oBn @pra#ti#al +ove+ent for de+o#ra#y@ 0#f. )agarlitsky 1988, 61$2, in the absen#e of instit&tional fo#i Bith so+e independen#e of the #enter, s&#h as Poland-s Catholi# Ch&r#h or &n#olle#tiviIed peasantry/in the absen#e of all diese, no dissenting voi#e in !o+ania had +&#h #han#e of be#o+ing a #hor&s. *ot one of the #onditions that pro+oted the for+ation of 1olidarity in Poland obtained in !o+ania, in% #l&ding, as 3 observe in the te4t, Bestern s&pport for those Billing to speak o&t against the regi+e. $. 3 oBe dies# final points to a dis#&ssion Bith AshrafFhani, Bho en#o&raged +e to p&sh +y arg&+ent to its li+it.