Hungarian Studies Newsletter, 1976 (4. évfolyam, 9-12. szám)
1976 / 11. szám
ARTICLES (Continued) Sozan, Michael. “The Magyarization of Hungarian Ethnography (1889-1919),” in Toward a Science of Man; Essays in the History of Anthropology, Timothy H.H. Thoresen, ed. (The Hague; Mouton, 1975), 143-157. This paper examines “important contributing factors to, and the organizational development of, Hungarian ethnography,” at a time when, a socio-political process of Magyarization was in progress. The interest in ethnogenetic studies itself was in part sparked by the preparations for the Millenia (1896), when large-scale ethnographic exhibitions were staged. The Ethnographic Society of Hungary was formed twenty years earlier under the leadership of Pál Hunfalvy. Its aim was “the study of the state of Hungary,” in which studies all of the peoples who inhabited the region or were currently its inhabitants were included. In the early years the Society studied both oral traditions and the material culture of the peasants in an effort to learn more about early (original) Magyar society. Though there was a“reluctanceto draw up general laws or principles about society or its culture,” most problems were approached from a historical perspective. Though non-interpretive and non-comparative, the detailed and accurate descriptions of folk customs collected in these years have proven to be extremely valuable. In the 1920s two political ideologies clashed, and the one which saw Hungary as a single cultural unit under Magyar leadership won over the other which considered it ethnic nation-society. The change was seen in L. Rethy’s resignation as editor of Ethnográphia and a change in the name of the Society from Magyarországi Néprajzi Társaság (Ethnographic Society of Hungary) to Magyar Néprajzi Társaság (Hungarian Ethnographic Society). Dr. Sozan is Assoc. Prof, of Sociology and Anthropology at Slippery Rock State Coll., Pa. □ Sozan, Michael. “Sociocultural Transformation in East- Central Europe: the Case of the Hungarian Peasant-Worker in Burgenland.” Paper presented at the First Annual Meeting of the American Hungarian Educators’ Association, Cleveland, Ohio, November 1975. Sozan examines the mechanism of peasant transformation that has led to changes in the structure of both the family and the village community. The study is based on the author’s research in the village of Unterwart (AlsooV) Austria. The tradition of non-agricultural work outside of the family dates to the 19th century and came about as a result of the inability of the land to support the increasing population. Such work also helped provide the cash, and brought in new ideas and innovations. Peasant workers came from families with poor lands, and in some instances retained some'land or forest as an investment rather than a “peasant-domain.” The amount of cash earned, family background, the personal consideration all influence a peasant-worker’s “peasantness.” Most of them are involved in a system of mutual obligations whereby each helps his peasant relatives and friends, for economic reasons and social solidarity. The wives, generally, have a continuous obligation to help with the farm work, and their life-styles are not yet fully urbanized. The family structure tends to be matriarchal, since it is the IN MEMÓRIÁM GÉZA DE ROHAN - CSERMÁK 1926 - 1976 wife who has to make the chief decisions, and this leads to problems in a peasant culture where men had been the decision makers. There are few diversions. Both social and political activity tends to be organized along occupational lines. A dual prestige system also works to minimize social conflict and to assure, for the time being, that the peasantworker continues to live in his own village rather than move into a city. □ Sozan, Michael, “Erdei Ferenc: Peasant Society.” Peasant Studies Newsletter, IV: 2 (April 1975) 2-12. Erdei was a sociologist turned politician who wrote with force and passion about Hungarian peasantry, and participated actively in the radical transformation of the Hungarian society into its present form in which peasantry has no place any more. According to Sozan, “The basic notion (some believe it is the foundation) that runs through Erdei’s philosophy is that peasantry is a transitional social formation, and a diseased social existence.” No such thing as a “healthy peasant society” exists. The present article, translated and introduced by Sozan, appeared originally in Hungarian in 1943. In it, Erdei discusses the historical process which brought about the peasantry, its place in the society, its evolutionary changes, the differences between Western European and Hungarian feudal systems, and the role of peasantry in the post-feudal era all away to the relationship of peasantry and the representatives of folkpopulism. He says that before World War II “Hungarian thinkers were not as much concerned with general social process as with specific Hungarian peasant problems.” Idealization of the peasantry characterized these years when the “peasantry was looked upon as a redeeming social stratum willing to come to the rescue of the nation.” □ Volgyes, Ivan. “Limited Liberalization in Hungary,” Current History, March 1976, 107-110. In spite of a trend of liberalization, there has been no relaxation of party control. In case of transgression of officially defined borders, the power of the state is brought to bear in measures such as expulsion from the party and loss of jobs (the “Lukacs School”) or emigration (Szelenyi). Though some elections are now multi-candidate, they are not multiparty. The economic gains under the New Economic Mechanism are real, but do not necessarily lead to liberalism. There is some tolerance in granting the desires of interest groups, but party control remains. The new middle class, exhibiting an interest in the acquisition of consumer and luxury goods, remains conservative in politics, unwilling to oppose the existing rule. The majority of the population, who has not profited so obviously from the NEM, has been effectively depoliticized. Outside influences, notably the Soviet Union, also limit liberalization. The one area where public opinion is strong, is in opposition to Romania’s “nearapartheid policies. . . toward the nearly three million Hungarians living in Transylvania.” Dr. Volgyes is Assoc. Prof, of Political Science at the U. of Nebraska. □ NO. 11. 1976. HUNGARIAN STUDIES NEWSLETTER 13
