Begegnungen
Schriftenreihe des Europa Institutes Budapest, Band 12:189–194.

FERENC GLATZ

Kontinuität in der Wissenschaft

Eine Besonderheit der Systemveränderungen in Mittelosteuropa war und ist es auch heute noch, dass die Nationalismen nicht entfesselt wurden. Gegenüber den Veränderungen der politischen und gesellschaftlichen Systeme der vergangenen 150 Jahre, für die immer charakteristisch war, dass sich die Nationen gegeneinander wendeten, und imstande waren, auch die Fragen der sozialen und wirtschaftlichen Umgestaltung den emotionalen Gesichtspunkten, den nationalen Gegensätzen unterzuordnen, ist eine andere wesentliche Besonderheit der vergangenen 150 Jahre, dass dieses Sich-Gegeneinanderwenden der Nationen von der Geschichtsschreibung fundiert worden war. Mehr noch: in nationalistischen Kriegen und ideologischen Zusammenstößen nahmen immer die Historiker die Rolle des Vortrupps ein.

Die Grundlage von all dem ist bekannt: im mittelosteuropäischen Raum sind im Laufe der Geschichte zwischen 1000 – 1800 beispiellos viele unterschiedliche Nationen ineinander übergegangen. Diese haben das Aufeinanderstoßen unterschiedlicher Brauchsysteme und verschiedener Lebensformen mit sich gebracht. Das Zusammenleben hatte natürlich auch Konfrontationen zur Folge. Und im Laufe des Zusammenlebens sind diese unterschiedlichen Nationen gewandert. Innerhalb des Gebietes der Habsburgermonarchie haben sie sich relativ frei bewegt. Als es dann im 19. Jahrhundert zur Herausbildung der Nationalstaaten kam, stellte sich heraus, dass die Siedlungsgebiete und die Staatsgrenzen der unterschiedlichen Nationen nicht identisch sein können. Daraus entstand eine 150 Jahre dauernde kriegerische Periode, in deren Verlauf es nie gelang, die ethnischen Grenzen den Staatsgrenzen anzupassen. In diesem Raum brach sowohl der Erste als auch der Zweite Weltkrieg aus, und unter deren unmittelbaren Gründen und Ursachen haben wir in erster Linie die ethnischen, die nationalen Gegensätze sowie die Loslösung der Siedlungsgebiete der Nationen und der Staatsgrenzen voneinander zu suchen. So war dies 1914, und so war es auch 1939.

Es war zu erwarten, dass diese alten Nationalismen wieder freigesetzt werden, wenn in diesem Raum eine neuere große politische und soziale Umgestaltung eintreten wird. Von der sowjetischen Besatzung (1945–1990) wurden nämlich die Nationalismen verdrängt und die Gegensätze zwischen den kleinen Nationen des Raumes unterdrückt. Bereits 1989–1990 rechneten wir, die wir damals handelnde Akteure waren, für den Fall der Beschleunigung des politischen Systemwandels damit, dass im Falle des eventuellen Rückzugs der Sowjets oder im Falle der Schwächung der Sowjetmacht in diesem Raum die Gegensätze zwischen den kleinen Nationen wieder aufglühen würden. Und wir befürchteten auch, dass in dieser Reihe von nationalen Gegensätzen dann die Historiker die erste Rolle spielen werden, denn der Grundstoff für die nationalen Gegensätze ist die Geschichte, so wie das Grundmaterial der historischen Beleidigungen. Nicht so ist es aber geschehen.

Nach den Systemveränderungen von 1989–1990, dann nach dem Zerfall der sowjetischen Besatzung bildeten sich neue Staaten heraus: die Tschechoslowakei (Produkt der Friedenssysteme von 1920) ist zerfallen, zerfallen ist Jugoslawien (das ebenfalls das Produkt der Friedenssysteme von 1920 war) und natürlich begannen die nationalen Selbständigkeitsbewegungen, bzw. wurden die Kämpfe der nationalen Minderheiten für ihre Selbständigkeit stärker. (Bekannt sind die derartigen Kämpfe der ungarischen Minderheiten in der Slowakei und in Rumänien, bekannt ist auch das Problem Rumäniens in Moldawien, und bekannt sind die Minderheitengegensätze auf dem Balkan, von denen letztere beinahe zum Dritten Weltkrieg geführt haben). In diesen Zusammenstößen haben die Geschichtsschreibungen eine sehr positive Rolle gespielt. Jetzt, entgegen der 150-jährigen Tradition, waren es gerade die Historiker, die nicht geneigt waren, die historischen Fakten zu den emotionalen und häufig irrationalen nationalen Gegensätzen zu liefern. In erster Linie waren es die Politiker, die sich auf den Stimmengewinn eingerichtet hatten, die sowohl in Ungarn, als auch in Rumänien und in der Slowakei und in den südslawischen Staaten den nationalen Radikalismus vertraten. Die ernst zu nehmenden Historiker, die Gelehrten, die Akademien, die wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaften und Vereinigungen traten jetzt nicht für die Auslösung der nationalen Gegensätze ein. Warum nur? Diese Frage haben wir schon in den Jahren 1992–93 gestellt. Unsere Antwort war folgende: die führenden Repräsentanten der Geschichtswissenschaften dieses Raumes sowie die jungen Leute hatten in den vergangenen Jahrzehnten ein so gutes institutionelles und persönliches Beziehungssystem herausgestaltet, hatten die Werke voneinander so gut kennengelernt, dass sie imstande waren, ihre eigene nationale Entwicklung mit den Augen der Historiker der anderen Nation (ihrer Freunde und Fachkollegen) zu betrachten. Deshalb wagten wir es schon im Jahre 1992–93 zu behaupten: die Historiker haben in den Systemveränderungen in Ostmitteleuropa eine grundlegend positive Rolle gespielt. Einerseits wandten sie sich gegen ihren eigenen Nationalismus, andererseits regten sie die nationalen Gemeinschaften ihres Raumes zur Realität und zur regionalen Zusammenarbeit an und lehrten sie diese. Jene zahlreichen internationalen Konferenzen zwischen österreichischen, ungarischen, slowakischen, polnischen, rumänischen, russischen, serbischen, kroatischen Historikern, in deren Verlauf wir die Probleme der Weltwirtschaft des Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit und der diesen Raum durchschneidenden Handelsstraßen, dann das Vordringen der europäischen Gedankenströmungen der Renaissance, des Barocks, der Aufklärung in diesem Raum erörterten; dann behandelten wir die nationalen Umgestaltungen des 19. Jahrhunderts, die Veränderungen und Besonderheiten der feudalistischen Wirtschaftsordnung in Osteuropa und des Grundbesitzes und die Rolle des wirtschaftlichen Aufschwungs um die Jahrhundertwende, die Rolle der darauffolgenden sozialen Gegensätze, die Umstände des Ausbruchs des Ersten Weltkriegs, die gemeinsamen historischen Besonderheiten der Revolutionen in Mittelosteuropa, dann das Vordringen des deutschen Faschismus in die mittelosteuropäische Region, dann die Fragen des antifaschistischen Widerstands und der Teilnahme am Zweiten Weltkrieg – diese Konferenzen, diese Konferenzdokumente, die auf diesen Spuren entstandenen persönlichen Kontakte haben allesamt unser Denken beeinflusst und haben uns zur regionalen Betrachtungsweise erzogen. Nun und jetzt noch ein Fakt: die auf diesen Konferenzen oder in den gemeinsamen Stipendiatenjahren und in den Seminaren entstandenen Freundschaften haben uns ab ovo daran gewöhnt, dass wir, ich wiederhole es noch einmal, unsere eigene Geschichte auch mit den Augen des anderen betrachten können. Ich z. B. halte es für unvorstellbar, dass mir, wenn ich über das deutsch-ungarische Verhältnis spreche, nicht die Namen der bei Stipendiatenaufenthalten oder Konferenzen in der 1970er Jahren in Deutschland kennengelernten Freunde in den Sinn kommen, ob nun von Karl Nehring, Ralph Melville, von Jürgen Kocka, von den Österreichern Haselsteiner, Sündhausen, Suppan, Waltraud Heindl oder vom Slowaken Dušan Kovač, vom Polen Maciej Kozminski, vom Rumänen Bezianu, vom Kroaten Roksandic, vom Serben Mitrovic die Rede sein mag, und ich könnte die Aufzählung auch mit den Namen vieler anderer meiner Freunde fortsetzen. Es ist beinahe unvorstellbar, dass mir, wenn ich mich mit der ungarischen Geschichte und mit den die ungarische Geschichte mit unseren Nachbarn verbindenden Fragen befasse, nicht die von diesen Kollegen vorgetragenen Argumente bei den Unterhaltungen am Abend einfallen. Und natürlich erhalte ich von ihnen die Sonderdrucke ihrer Texte, ihrer Artikel, ich lese diese und behandele ihre Argumente mit absolutem Vertrauen. Das heißt, dass vor mir sich die Vorgeschichte dieses heutigen gemeinsamen Denkens entfaltet: die 1970er Jahre, in denen sich zwischen dem östlichen und westlichen geistigen Leben ein aktiveres Beziehungssystem zu entfalten beginnt. 1970 bedeutete das Auftreten der neuen deutschen Ostpolitik und zugleich im Weltraumkrieg das Eintreten des Kräftegleichgewichts, dass die Eliteintelligenz der Sowjetzone (vor allem die polnische, die ungarische, die rumänische und die jugoslawische Elite) relativ frei an Konferenzen und Stipendiatenaufenthalten in Westeuropa teilnehmen konnte. Dies war die Zeit des Aufschwungs des großen wissenschaftlichen Tourismus in Europa. Damals hoben sich in der ostmitteleuropäischen Geschichtsschreibung jene Persönlichkeiten heraus, die es für ihre Aufgabe hielten, die regionale Betrachtungsweise herauszugestalten, oder die zumindest instinktiv bemüht waren, die Geschichtsschreibungen der unterschiedlichen Länder einander näher zu bringen. Und diese Persönlichkeiten waren es, die schon bewusst bestrebt waren, ihre jungen Kollegen mit der Geschichte der Nachbarvölker, ja sogar mit den Kollegen der Nachbarvölker bekannt zu machen. Solche große Persönlichkeiten waren der damals noch junge György Ránki, Péter Hanák, Domokos Kosáry, Emil Niederhauser der Österreicher Richard Plaschka, die Deutschen Karl Otmar Freiherr von Aretin und Matthias Bernath, Schödl, der Pole Geremek, der Rumäne D. Berindei, der Russe und Aserbaidshaner Islamow und Susarin, die Kroatin Mirjana Gross u. a.

1972 verbrachte ich ein Jahr am Institut für Europäische Geschichte in Mainz. Junge Historiker aus verschiedenen Teilen der Welt, die sich für die Geschichte Europas interessierten und an derartigen Themen arbeiteten, wohnten dort zusammen in einem Gebäude, kamen wöchentlich zur Kaffeerunde zusammen, und tauschten zur gleichen Zeit jeden Abend ihre Gedanken über die Ergebnisse ihrer alltäglichen wissenschaftlichen Forschungsarbeit aus. Die in diesem Institut geschlossenen Freundschaften und Bekanntschaften hatten dann später auch mehrere Einladungen zur Teilnahme an internationalen Konferenzen zur Folge. Dort trafen wir uns mit amerikanischen, französischen, südamerikanischen, sowjetischen, jugoslawischen, tschechischen, polnischen, österreichischen und natürlich mit deutschen und englischen Kollegen und diskutierten miteinander unsere Forschungsthemen. Dann in den späteren Jahrzehnten, als wir schon Universitätsdozenten und Professoren geworden waren, luden wir einander zu internationalen Konferenzen ein und entdeckten uns auf verschiedenen internationalen Konferenzen mit großer Freude wieder, und pflegten und pflegen auch heute noch die damals geschlossenen Freundschaften. (Ich kann mich z. B. daran erinnern, dass ich meinen ersten internationalen Vortrag im Nachwuchsseminar der Südostdeutschen Historischen Kommission gehalten habe. Die Historische Kommission hielt es für ihre Aufgabe, für junge Historiker des mittelosteuropäischen Raumes jährlich eine Konferenz zu veranstalten, wo die älteren Professoren, damals war der Deutsche Wandruschka die führende Gestalt dieser Bewegung, sich trafen. Wir haben gelernt, in Fremdsprachen vorzutragen, zu diskutieren und haben es erlernt, welche jene Themen sind, die vom europäischen. d. h. vom internationalen Standpunkt aus wichtig sein können. Wir haben es überhaupt erlernt, unsere eigene nationale Geschichte mit den Augen eines Europäers zu betrachten.)

Scheinbar habe ich mich sehr weit von meinem Ausgangspunkt, von der Geschichte der Entstehung des jetzigen Nachwuchsseminars entfernt. Doch nur scheinbar.

1990 wurde von uns das Budapester Europa Institut gegründet. Eine Zielsetzung dieses Europa Instituts war, dass wir Historiker, Politologen, Ökonomen und Soziologen unsere gemeinsamen mittelosteuropäischen Angelegenheiten gemeinsam behandeln. Unsere mittelosteuropäische Mannschaft, die in den 70er–80er Jahren eine enge Freundschaft geschlossen hatte (Haselsteiner, Suppan, Kozminski, der damals gerade auch Botschafter war, Dušan Kovaø), hatte beschlossen, die absolute politische Unabhängigkeit des Instituts auszunutzen und unabhängig von der Tagespolitik regionale mittelosteuropäische Programme zu starten und Anstrengungen zu unternehmen, im Denken der Intelligenz unseres Raumes die Anforderungen des Europäertums zu verwurzeln. Das Europa Institut ist ein völlig privates Institut, auch die Ressourcen seiner Gründer stammen zur Gänze aus Privatvermögen. Damals war Péter Hanák, einer der Vorreiter des mittelosteuropäischen Gedankens, noch aktiv, so wie Emil Niederhauser, doch genau so auch der Österreicher Richard-Georg Plaschka und der auch nach dem Untergang der Sowjetunion weiterhin auf dem internationalen Plan erfolgreich auftretende Tofik Islamow und der Rumäne Berindei. Die regionalen Programme hatten gute Erfolge. Zur Minderheitenfrage, zur Frage des Friedenssystems des Jahres 1920, zur Bewertung der sowjetischen Besatzung veranstaltete das Europa Institut zusammen mit dem Österreichischen Ost- und Südosteuropa-Institut in Wien und mit dem Institut für den Donauraum und Mitteleuropa solche Konferenzen, die bemüht waren, die vorstehend erwähnte regionale Betrachtungsweise und die europäischen Maßstäbe allgemein zu verbreiten. Als Teil dieser Konferenzen bildeten sich die brain stormings der Organisatoren heraus, Gespräche bei Fischsuppe und Wein, auf denen die Pläne des nächsten Jahres ausgearbeitet wurden. (Diese brain stormings wurden manchmal in Wien, manchmal in Payerbach, manchmal hier in Zebegény abgehalten.) Und hier stellten wir die Frage: was wird, wenn auch unsere Generation alt wird, in Pension geht oder sich eventuell aus der Reihe der Lebenden entfernt? Haben wir der nach uns folgenden jungen Generation dabei geholfen, dass sie persönlich aufeinander treffen, sich kennenlernen können? Wie uns seinerzeit unsere Meister geholfen hatten? So entstand 1998 der Gedanke: organisieren wir systematisch Nachwuchsseminare, in deren Rahmen die jungen Wissenschaftler ihre Arbeiten vorstellen können, sich zugleich eine Konferenzpraxis aneignen und auch persönliche Beziehungen ausbauen können. Das Österreichische Ost- und Südosteuropa-Institut Wien, das Europa Institut Budapest, sowie das Institut für Geschichtswissenschaften der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften und das jetzt in Entstehung befindliche Budapester Minderheitenforschungsinstitut übernahmen die organisatorische Arbeit. Zuerst soll die Konferenz bilateral sein, das heißt, ein Treffen von österreichischen und ungarischen Historikern bzw. Politologen. Dann später, wenn sich der Versuch als erfolgreich erwiesen hat, sollten wir den Kreis erweitern und der Veranstaltung einen regionalen Charakter geben, indem wir die slowakischen, dann auch die slowenischen, polnischen, rumänischen, kroatischen und serbischen Kollegen einladen. (Eben für diese Institutionen hat Herr Professor Horst Haselsteiner als gegenwärtiger Vorsitzender der Aktion Österreich-Ungarn österreichischerseits die Organisationsarbeit übernommen, wofür ich ihm hiermit meinen Dank auch als Mitglied des Kuratoriums des Europa Instituts ausspreche.)

In der Zwischenzeit ist unser guter alter Freund Péter Hanák verstorben. Péter Hanák hatte noch zu Lebzeiten, als ihm die größte ungarische wissenschaftliche Auszeichnung, der Széchenyi-Preis, verliehen wurde, mit einer relativ kleinen Summe eine Stiftung gegründet, aus der Preise an solche jungen Historiker vergeben werden, die sich mit der mittelosteuropäischen Geschichte befassen, vor allem mit der Gesellschaftsgeschichte, der Wirtschafts- und der Kulturgeschichte. Nach dem Tode Hanáks wurde die Stiftung von seinen Kindern ergänzt, jetzt trat auch das Europa Institut dieser Stiftung bei. Es wurde beschlossen, den Péter-Hanák-Preis anlässlich des abzuhaltenden Nachwuchsseminars zu vergeben. So wurde die Vergebung des Péter-Hanák-Preises mit der Sitzung des ersten mittelosteuropäischen Nachwuchsseminars verbunden.

Liebe Kollegen! Liebe Freunde!

Ich hoffe, dass von diesen großen Plänen in Zukunft alle realisiert werden. Ich hoffe, dass wir mit der Einrichtung des ersten Nachwuchsseminars wirklich die reale Selbstbetrachtung, Selbstbewertung der mittelosteuropäischen Völker fördern, und ich hoffe, dass wir der Geschichtswissenschaft dazu verhelfen, dass sie die tagespolitischen Bestrebungen nie vor die wissenschaftlichen Normen treten lässt. Und hoffen wir, dass wir wirklich den Prozess unterstützen, dass die in diesem Raum tätigen jungen Wissenschaftler persönliche Beziehungen zueinander aufnehmen, innerhalb der persönlichen Beziehungen aber fachliche Diskussionen veranstalten, und wirklich methodisch voneinander lernen, dass ihr Geist sich schärft, dass ihre Vortrags- und Schreibtechnik besser wird. In diesem Zeichen wünsche ich der Konferenz erfolgreiche Diskussionen. Ich hoffe, dass diese Konferenzen nicht nur Vorlesungen von Arbeiten, sondern auch wirklicher Meinungsaustausch sein werden, so wie wir es uns vorstellen.

Begegnungen
Schriftenreihe des Europa Institutes Budapest, Band 12:149–162.

GLATZ FERENC

Information Society

The Nature of Industrial-Technological Revolutions

We are living out our days in an age of industrial-technological revolutions. Today, everyone accepts the truth of this statement. It is also true that there are continuing arguments about the nature of this new phenomenon, whether it is “only” a new wave of the first industrial-technological revolution of the 18th – 19th centuries, that has been going on unabated ever since, or rather it represents an independent period. There are also ongoing arguments about the issues of what are the specific aspects of industrial revolutions; are these vested in the new materials used in production and in the culture of tools (iron, plastics, etc), or the energy used (steam, petrol, electricity, atom)? Or whether the industrial-technological revolution should be understood in terms of changes in technology only, representing revolutionary alterations in the principles of shaping raw materials and production-methods (such as the age of machinery).

As a student of the evolution of society and of the history of everyday life, I have been teaching about the industrial-technological revolution in a different way for decades. And let me add; I also evaluate the current, new revolution differently than many others.

Mutual Relations Between Human Beings and Technology

I consider the industrial-technical revolution as a social and cultural revolution.

It is true that the industrial revolution began in the 18^th century with the invention of new technical processes of the production of goods (even this assertion is disputable because “technical innovation” means, at the same time, “innovation in thinking.”) The technical inventions of the 18^th century were the consequences of innovative thinking; they would have been impossible without the revolution of mass-culture in the 16^th – 17^th century (the printing of books accompanied by an explosion of knowledge). In other words, the new technology, the “industrial moment,” cannot be understood without its “human” component.

I often ask myself, “Where is the starting point in all this?” Is it at the point of the evolution of the human being, an individual living a spiritual life, or at the development of the new technical units (such as a machine)? Or at the point of the innovative application of energy sources (such as steam)? I myself – in opposition to the writers of the majority of our history books – do not place them in ranks of order, but speak, instead, of interactions. For example, without the general explosion of knowledge Watt’s steam engine could not have been invented, neither could the many inventions of the 18^th and the 19^th centuries could have come about. (One of the outstanding historians of our century tried to prove, in a lengthy study, that the machine as a technical unit was preceded by the development of the concept of “machinery.” Consequently, the practical construction of the machine itself is only the task for the technician. Or as a current engineering professor teaches about the “order of ranking;”first experience, then idea, then tools, then experience again, new idea, new tools; their close interrelationship leads to new applications. In other words, the practical use of a fallen tree as a roller leads to the transportation of a load; from this natural roller an artificial one, the wheel, is developed... and there are numerous other examples for this process.) However, no matter what position one takes in this dispute, for me it is a fact that one cannot consider the industrial-technological revolution as merely a “technological” process. Neither the industrial-technological revolution of a couple of hundred years ago, nor the one taking place today should be considered as such. Why?

When we examine the history of technical innovations in society, and the availability and use of tools, we will discover that significant innovations remained incomplete, and were even forgotten, if society were unwilling to use them. Such innovations had not contributed to the further evolution of thinking. For instance, we know that in China many inventions in physics and chemistry were introduced long before they were used in European culture. The Chinese knew about gunpowder and rockets. However, these technological inventions did not become a starting point or, for that matter, parts of a continuous industrial-technological revolution. Why? Because the medium, the people, who would have recognized the social significance of the inventions were absent. The invention, the idea, was isolated from society. It was the emergence of a caste-based society in China that prevented the absorption or assimilation of the innovations. (A Hungarian historian of technology rightly observed that it was not accidental that ideas emerging in Hungary were realized in Germany or in the United States, and it is equally not an accident that Hungarian Noble-prize winners – with one exception – developed their inventions in German or American environments.)

As I mentioned above, the technical innovations of craftsmen and later of engineers in Europe, were the outcome of a general revolution in thinking. At the same time, these innovations were a starting point of new social usages, a social transformation. The foundation of this mutual relationship is rooted in the typical developmental characteristics of European society. In fact, this society, based on Judeo-Christian principles, had never lost its mobility. It is true that this society was based on various ideological elements (property, politics, religion), on social classes, strata and interest groups. However, mutuality (solidarity) and mobility have remained characteristic of European society for a thousand years and these elements have been its moving and driving forces all this time.

Society had to be willing and able to assimilate the “machine,” or the new technology. The new production process – and all that it implied; new materials, new processes/technologies of working a given material, new organization of firms, and a new method of training, directed at the masses – could become challenges for new social processes. To illustrate this with a concrete example people in the 19^th century created, out of necessity, new forms of settlements because the new unit of a firm – for example, the factory – demanded continuous cooperation and dwellings located closer to the places of work and new, unified bases for training and disciplined thinking. In addition, I am inclined to deduce the development of the well springs of the European mother-tongues and of the national units from the needs of an industrial society, that is, from the originality and the new organization of work and settlement system. In a large factory, for example, – which has been the classical unit of industrial production – the workers had to understand instructions exactly as they were given. There was also need for means of uniform communication corresponding to exact production norms, for a constantly reinvented modernizing language. Modern production methods, modern directions, modern industrial society – in which large numbers of people live in a close community, communicate with each other quickly and more often in a day than they did in the past in months, – this industrial-technological revolution forced the renewal and standardization of national languages on the continent. This was the process that brought about the development of norms of information-exchange, without which neither mass production methods, nor the modern administration of the masses could have been organized...

We must study the “human factor” in the production processes more intensively. We must discover the fact that the new production methods not simply “affect” human thinking, but the process itself constantly changes as a consequence of the constantly curious, evolving human brain. (The curiosity of the masses, the will to renewal, are also a characteristic of our culture.) There is a mutual relationship between a piece of work and the worker, between the material and the technology and the man involved. This relation exists on the individual as well as on the societal level.

The New Synthesis of Natural and Social Sciences

Consequently, we should regard the industrial-technological revolution not only through the machines and technological innovations it creates, but also through the development of the human spirit, the process of the self-renewal of human society. In this self-renewal immobile matter is but the means. The means is – technology – the goal is the renewal of the human spirit. These two factors cannot be separated. Perhaps, one day we might abandon our one-sided concept of life, consisting of scrambling for material goods. And we might also respect more in ourselves and in our neighbors – and as a subject for research – the man who is creating a community alongside the one who produces the goods, the man who lives a spiritual life, is a member of a family, partakes in simple human happiness and enjoys the beauty of the world.

Unfortunately, such interrelations are not readily noticed in our world. I ask myself, why? Perhaps because the practitioners of technology and the so-called “lifeless” natural sciences have been gradually separated from sociological knowledge? It is possible. But the reverse of this is also certainly true; the practitioners of social sciences utterly lack knowledge of the natural sciences. And I have the courage to state; university-academic unions and other institutions safeguarding particular interests force the confrontation of the two types of knowledge.

It is undoubtedly true that the great successes of technology and the natural sciences in the 20^th century created an impression that the basis of human progress may be found exclusively in the practices of the natural sciences. Consequently, we have created a system of goals and values for mankind in which material goods (money, technical gadgets) became the determining factors. On the other hand, we, researchers have neglected the human-emotional elements in our own everyday lives. We do not spend enough time on them. I repeat; we have become members of a large firm in which we constantly invent impact-factors in the interest of more and more production. Therefore, we underestimate the homo ludens in ourselves. Yet, without it, we human beings would be lacking ideas, be without emotions, and would be simply products of biochemistry. This would be true for researchers as well as for producers. In general, we underestimate the human being who “builds society.” Similarly, we underestimate the significance of research dealing with such matters; that is, the social sciences. And I ask myself; “isn’t it also true that, on the other hand, there is disparagement of technical culture, almost on a ‘medieval’ pattern?” Technology is being considered as simply a means for the production of “articles” that in the creation of society (and in politics) is “only” secondary. People thinking this way cannot see that in the world of articles (in a machine or a useful tool) the human spirit is embodied just as much as it is present in the creation of an art work or in a political-military action that is thought out with finesse. I am able to enjoy the sight of a marvellous spiral house of a snail or a gnarled axle or gears that cling and hold together with marvellous precision. It gives me pleasure just as a soundtrack of Bartók does with its seven notes.

We have been urging the creation of a new synthesis in world view, in the practice and organization of research, for years. It seems that the consequence of the separation of the systems of ideas is that only such creations receive recognition that fit into the separate hierarchies and their specific community of research goals. Minds that work for a new synthesis or want to revive the “completeness” of views that had existed at the beginning of the 20^th century – will find themselves outside the daily workings of their disciplines. The development of the new information revolution now demands the elimination of the deficit of the previous century.

This is the way I view the history of the 19^th – 20^th centuries as a scholar and researcher of the relations between “man and nature,” and the subject of “man and the artificial and natural environment.” I consider the history of our days from a similar viewpoint, including the industrial revolution. The latter is being considered by many as an informational revolution, and I think of it similarly. What, in fact, is happening in these days?

The Information Revolution in Eastern Europe

The scientific and technological as well as the social revolution were responsible for the collapse of the Soviet system. It failed as a military-strategic unit, as well as a social-organizational system, because it was unable to assimilate changes. Our historical studies do not yet emphasize this fact. The invention and development of semi-conductors, the chip, micro-technology, the news- and information transmitting systems, undermined not only the organization of production and that of work in Hungary, but also the existing social formations. The technical changes contributed to the democratization of political organizations in the region faster than any radical political force in the last century-and-a-half. From one day to the next, these changes made events happening in the community a part of every citizen’s life.

The forces of the new scientific-technological revolution gradually undermine the system of territorial organizations on the continent including those in Eastern Europe. After the Soviet collapse, they helped to speed up the integration of the region, a process under way for several centuries. The world-system, created in the first half of the 19^th century, is now in dissolution. This process and the development of new production-community forms will mostly determine future directions in our region. It questions the basic principles of the organization of the nation states and, at the same time, will change the current role of the state. It will arrange the hierarchy of relations connecting the individual to the community; it will relegate the one-sided primacy of citizen identification and replace it with new identifications of social, national, religious, or generational affinities. In other words, the informatics-information revolution will engender the birth of a new society.

Globalizing tendencies are also being strengthened by the information-revolution. These changes are occurring in the organization and direction of production, in commerce as well as in the system of transportation and individual occupational mobility. The computer has given a new impetus to the automatization of production processes. It increased the productivity of work and opened a new chapter in the machine age. As a consequence, the new technology of the organization of work is finally destroying the crumbling fences of national economies. The workplace of the craftsman, farmer, the intellectual — even if he works in the smallest village, – is becoming part of the world market. His ability to accomplish his work, his successes, the artefacts that he produces, are being measured by world market standards. The radius of interests and the mobility of the individual have increased almost without limits.

The spread of the information revolution upgrades the role of the knowledge-industry and of the intellectuals involved in research and development. History is no longer being studied as merely the story of inter-cultural relations, but the history of possessing information. (As the process of storing, transmitting and using information.) The computer has increased the possibilities and need for the application of scientific information manifold. As a consequence, a really large scientific industry emerged and stands in support of production. This is the large industry of information-technology. The information revolution, in turn, demands the work of local intellectual experts who are capable of surveying complicated systems and can develop corresponding local organizations. It needs intellectuals capable of using the new means available.

Information and knowledge are not only the propelling forces of productivity, but they are, at the same time, the creators of new political values in a much more effective way than any of their predecessors. The newest means of power, following immediately after military forces, money, and state offices, is knowledge (and its scientific institutions). It is the condition of human success, of individual fulfilment.

The value-creating property of knowledge also increases the power of the institutions of knowledge. One of the lessons to be derived from the development of our age is that social economic progress always begins with the dynamic growth of research and education.

The technical-technological, cultural and political components of change have been present in the everyday life of civil societies for decades. However, for the first time, the penetration of new world-forces is also seen to overwhelm our region. We must admit that we have been unprepared for them.

Informational society brings new challenges in the practices of scholarship, in the knowledge-industry. Information as technology poses questions not only for the organization of production, but also for science education, and for the current practices in the organization of scholarship. With the help of a computer placed on his desk, and his access to the internet, a person can individualize the acquisition and transmission of scientific knowledge. The explosive growth of information transmission, the fast acquisition of global perspectives has created competition previously unheard of in scientific research. It accelerated the production of printed means of knowledge (books, journals), and created a new culture of the transmission of knowledge, the electronic publication systems. It also created a revolution in the storing of data; one can store library-sized data on the disk shelves of one’s study.

Research practices are also in the process of transformation, although this process cannot yet be fully understood. It is evident, however, that the conditions and possibilities for research are creating changes in the acquisition of knowledge. The internal system of scientific thinking is also being altered. We must re-evaluate the centuries-old methods of our daily research activities. The hierarchy of individual steps of the process of learning – the collection of data, their verification, the assignation of their weight, conclusions, etc., – have become unbalanced. The limits of data collection have become almost unimaginably expanded. The mass results of the acquisition of data influence the goals of study, the selection of themes, even the creation of hypotheses. This process sometimes lures one into immersion in details. At the same time, it demands the ability to possess perspectives, to create a synthesis, more than ever before.

We must rethink the changing nature of the international relations of scientific research (committees, conferences, associations, etc.,) in securing the transmission and exchange of information. The organizational principles developed at the beginning of the 20^th century are now facing immeasurable transformation. We cannot foresee the changes as yet, because the consideration for new systems of goals of research in general have not yet entered into our consciousness. We cannot yet predict the changes because the social organization capable of absorbing the new organizational techniques have not yet been created; we cannot yet fully use the means offered by the information revolution. However, we can observe that the traditional knowledge- and exchange forums continue to remain in existence. Part of them are becoming superceded by the data-bases of information exchange, another part of them – especially the individual exchange of opinions – can become even more goal-oriented, more effective.

Information Revolutions and the Revolution of the Culture of Interactions

After all this, I must state that the determining phenomenon of our age is the revolution of the culture of interactions. Only the means of this interaction is informatics. (As it is also merely a means of scientific practices.) These means are, however, determining factors; they rearrange the processes of human communication.

While developing this concept, we may observe the previous system of human communication. It calls attention to the role that informed human beings have fulfilled in the past. In the possession of information human beings made decisions in matters of family, of production, of political community.

When studying the history of the culture of interactions, our perspective is being enlarged both in terms of the past and of the possible future. Men are social beings and human cultures could survive only when they formed sufficiently effective community organization. Neither the land, nor the wealth of nature, nor the ability to create technical means sustained human communities. The combination of these factors was an essential precondition for survival and continued living; the combination of favorable natural conditions, brains to create tools and fortunate community organization were essential.

In historical studies, we are searching for an explanation of the emergence of Europe (and the expansion of the Judeo-Christian cultural sphere). We are inclined to accept the idea that the Greek-Latin alphabet with its thirty-something letters (István Hajnal’s explanation), which made possible the transmission and storage of knowledge, its preservation and use, in both vertical and horizontal ways, was an important ingredient. Horizontally, that is, at the same time; vertically, or consecutively, in traditions piled upon one another. There has been continuous contact directly with contemporaries, and indirectly with successors. This was relevant among artisans, peasants producers of foodstuffs, official, teachers and others. The alphabet and literacy based on it could easily be acquired and it was available for various social strata. Therefore, literacy was not creating casts in the long run. I would like to add to this thought; the Greek-Latin system of writing was efficient and effective, because it lived on in a social system in which mutuality and solidarity were basic factors. The renewal of this idea – in the Renaissance and Reformation and in the economic-social systems that developed at the time, – made it possible for literacy to move out of a closed social organism, the organism of the church. It moved out at first because of the appearance of cursive writing, then on account of the printing of books. The acquisition of knowledge and the secularization of its transmission made the application of knowledge a mass phenomenon. In this process, I identify three information revolutions;

1. The Organization of the Christian church. I am inclined to date the first information revolution from the age of the building of the new Christian church organization (9th – 10th centuries AD) I locate this revolution at the point of the introduction of the Latin alphabet, based on a relatively narrow circle of literates and a somewhat wider circle of readers. Similar rules were becoming common in the continent-wide culture of exchange, above all, the Ten Commandments. They created an institution that strictly defined human interrelations and the norms of social existence with its code of morals. The means of this revolution were the preaching and listening to the Gospels, the exact mechanism of accounting for the commandments. And the miraculous culture of community singing! Thus, the previous culture of communications was placed on an entirely new foundation. (Its techniques included the system of writing of chronicles, and of documents.) In verbal culture the system of masses and the earlier ancient culture of interactions continued to exist in folk traditions.

2. Mass Education. I am inclined to consider the spread of mass education to have been the second information revolution. (19^th century). This process was comprised of definite knowledge-hoops, norms of universal mass behavior, and knowledge units that were transmitted in classrooms. It established uniform strands of thought, moral values and practical knowledge in the thinking of society. It developed uniform norms of behavior and a system of signals, i.e. the national languages. In turn, the process brought about fundamental changes in daily communications, in mutual understanding. The technical beginnings of the process can be discovered in the printing of books (16^th century).[(However, in this case, similarly to that of the 19th-20th century industrial-technological revolution, we have problems in determining the exact starting point and exclusive factors. Printing is “only” technology, but it is also part of the general intellectual revolution of the 14^th – 15^th centuries. Further development was only possible through this means. Which one prompted the other? The printed word brought about the social practice of reading by the masses. (18^th century)]. It encouraged the establishment of intellectual circles, the modern schools (19^th century) with their modern curricula. The printed word created the mass culture of newspapers at the end of the 19^th century. In turn, this became the social basis of the information revolution of our days.)]

3. The Age of Free Information Flow. The development of the age of the third information revolution is unfolding in our time. In my opinion, its essence is in the process by which the spread of information encounters no obstacles, it goes on outside all community organizations, – churches, schools, – it is obtainable by the individual and it can be transformed and modified by him. (The means for the process is the personal computer and everything else that comprises the area of information transmission.) The historical ordering of the process – from a strictly technical standpoint – begins with the invention of the chip – or, rather, from the invention of their fourth generation (1970). However, considering the information revolutions from a viewpoint of social and cultural history, I am inclined to think that the age of the spread of the radio- and the television set may be considered the beginning of the process. In other words, the beginnings could be the period of the 1930s–1960s, or the mechanization of mass verbal and pictorial transmission of knowledge. This opened new channels of information transmission, following the establishment of mass literacy and the introduction of daily newspapers. We must also mention the development of telephone communications, making dialogues at a distance possible, and its explosive expansion in the 1980s, 1990s. (The basis of which is the other technological miracle, the expansion of space research.)

We have not yet reached the end of the process. Today, researchers are speaking of a culture of the transmission of thinking which, with the help of transceivers inserted into one’s head, make verbal or written communications unnecessary...

It is a fact that the information revolution of our age is based, as the previous ones, on new technologies of transmitting, data-storing and processing of knowledge. Similarly to previous information revolutions, the current process also makes knowledge available for ever widening circles of the masses. As in the previous cases, technology and society mutually stimulate each other. Not only is it the case that human beings shape technology according to their needs but, in turn, technology also shapes the thinking of human beings. The current information revolution provides avenues for the triumph of individualism in the culture of communications. With the help of the internet and e-mail (1992), we may acquire any source of information. (Just think about it; the internet is only seven years old, but nearly one-hundred million people in the U.S.A., fifty million in Europe and five-hundred thousand in Hungary are using it.) Not only are we independent of the cultural transmission of the church, and also independent of the curricula of the school systems, but we are no longer relying on the radio and television producers, and their programs. Human curiosity is really being enhanced at this time. (And we should add; we are confronted by, and must seriously consider societies that developed in different cultural spheres. While in the two-thousand year old Judeo-Christian cultural sphere there has always been an emphasis on curiosity, – even if in an organized way – other cultures moved in closed circles. Therefore, our culture has an advantage over the others. Today, however, the cosmopolitan citizen freely sails over the world of the internet. Such freedoms break up the ancient organizations of culture and create individual competition.)

Social Assimilation

The literature dealing with the transmission of information constantly reminds us that we must continuously examine the social impact of informatics. Today, the evaluation of the impact of the internet is balanced. Experts are clear about the conflicts that are, at this time, insoluble. For instance, they are aware of the unregulated nature of information transmission and the misuse of information. (My reaction as a student of society, not of “information transmission,” tends to be that more reliance has to be placed on the mechanism of social self-regulation.) One must not bemoan the fact that the internet provides unlimited opportunities for the popularization of antisocial ideas, for the spread of thrash. On the contrary; emphasis must be placed on developing an educational and nurturing system dedicated to high standards and which is humanitarian in character. We must not only stand up against something, but we must make society be interested and receptive to what we consider noble values.) The information revolution also raises questions about the political systems of the world. Are the current political elites capable of viewing the problems and worries of humanity in a truly global perspective? Because today’s technology provides us with the possibility of combining technical-organizational processes worldwide. Are we capable of making responsible decisions when the opportunity arises to interfere, on the basis of the values of our own culture, in the political-social processes of peoples living in faraway cultures? Or, on what basis currently available organizations involved in political and economic integration (European Union, OECD, NATO, etc.,) determine the geographic limits of their activities? To pose a general question; is mankind, as a community of human beings, capable of recognizing and influencing social processes, and is sufficiently prepared for the task? Because the unification of a given region is not simply a matter for military, governmental and financial institutions, and it is not simply a technical task. For such a task there is a need for men familiar with the history of the multi-colored development of mankind, men who are capable of reviewing the past and envisioning the future from the viewpoint of the entire human species! Men need a new type of knowledge of the world! A new type of ideology, a new historical perspective and understanding of the present. We need a new recognition of the relations between nature and mankind. We certainly rule over the technology that we had developed, but do we rule over ourselves?

Hungary 2000

We, who live in Hungary, must do everything possible in order to have our local society keep up with the evolution of the world. We should even be part of the ranks of those who shape this world, especially those of us who have the ability to do so. We must do everything possible to have Hungarian society absorb the means of information technology and assimilate the needs of the informational society to the greatest extent. (This volume serves the same purpose.

While preparing a summary of the change of regimes (at least the history of the 1990’s) I would like to make three short comments and raise questions for further consideration. These are related to the adoption of the means of informatics and the foundation of informational society.

1. The Transformation of Communications. We must examine the relations between the means of information exchange and society much more extensively than before. The social sciences must pay closer attention to the “new themes.” Currently, a great deal of publicity is being produced, but there is not enough historical-sociological-cultural-anthropological analysis. As a consequence, there is a great deal of fear based on the centuries-old (or even a thousand years old) cultural communication.

There has been too much optimism in the minds of some people and, therefore, the disillusionment is also substantial. As a historian, my view is that there had existed different forms of information transmission and communication in the past besides mass-education. Similarly, there will remain other means for these tasks in the informational society, means that have been ours for centuries or thousands of years. For instance, I do not believe that electronic mail will replace traditional correspondence; articles published on the internet will not replace the reading of journals or books. I cannot believe that the free transfer of information will raise hundreds of millions of extroverted people. We will always have a personal life, jealously guarded emotions, and will always possess and attempt individual solutions to problems. Our actions will undoubtedly become more effective. Today, people do not report you directly to the police, they send reports on the internet. But, as I have mentioned above, I trust the self-correcting processes of society. (For instance, I believe that society will recognize the real intents behind brain washing technics. In other words, society will not believe everything it hears from politicians, newspapermen, or internet-knights.) This ability must be strengthened. Speaking from a historical perspective, every information revolution had changed previous forms and norms of communication. However, some of the old forms had proven to be enduring. Naturally, of the new forms some proved ephemeral, others more durable.

The process of the informational revolution had fulfilled a decidedly positive role in Hungary in the 1990’s. It contributed to the strengthening of civic openness, which we lacked at the time of Soviet rule, (between 1949–1990) and even before the war. In other words, the spread of the means of informatics – I repeat – democratized society. Researchers are often surprised by the active adaptability of Hungarian society. I am inclined to believe that this characteristic is also an element of our general traditions, of the acceptance of other cultures. We are a society always adaptable, curious and ready for renewal. It is a fact that the import of the Commodore (computers) was significant in the private sphere in the 1980s, which was not very prosperous at that time. The statistics of private PC acquisitions, the “fashion of computers,” are also astounding in the 1990’s. Our foreign colleagues cannot explain the fact that the per capita possession of mobile telephones placed Hungarians in the forefront of world statistics in the last few years. (Hungarians who are, in general, poor, are distinguished by their willingness to buy such a luxury article!) Hungarian society is surprisingly open for new trends, for more knowledge. (I am also willing to explain the four-hour per capita average daily television viewing in a positive way, as hunger for information. We are listed among the top ranks in this in world statistics as well.)

2. Preference for Research and Higher Education. In the first half of the 1990’s, our institutions of university research had deteriorated. It is true that there was no witch hunt at the universities and at the Academy of Sciences, but there was a lack of reform-mindedness for the assimilation of the new industrial-technological revolution. There were successes following the reform (1997), whose goal was the improvement of basic conditions for scientific endeavours. However, we are now facing the necessity of the reform of the infrastructure and of the compensation system. If these are postponed, then we will be facing the failure of our previous efforts. The basic question raised in institutions of elite culture today is, whether salary improvements will be implemented or computers will be acquired. The results are usually temporary solutions. The state must decide; either it will provide adequate funds for compensation in the sphere of university research and infrastructure, or the higher education of the country’s elite will lose out of the implementation of the blessings of the industrial-technological revolution.

3. The Increase of Social Inequality. One of the argument presented by the already numerous critics of the information revolution is that the means of informatics have not brought about cultural equality. On the contrary, it increased inequality. This is quite true. The reason is that the price of a personal computer and of its components is steep and only a constantly narrower segment of the population is able to pay for them. Consequently, the cultural gap is increasing. According to another criticism, trash literature is cheap and is therefore constantly expanding. (I already stated my opinion on that score.) Let us take a short look at the first criticism.

Previous information revolutions have, in their beginning phases, also increased the cultural gap. The spread of literacy upgraded the size of a reading stratum (in the 16^th–17^th centuries.), which had education and money to buy books and time to read them. Their language and thinking rose far above those of the poor than at any other time. However, printing had provided the opportunity for the mass duplication of reading material and for the education of the masses. (In the 19^th century.) These were realized by the use of the funds of the community – through the efforts of the state, – on the basis of the principle of solidarity. In other words, society developed the mechanism for establishing a balance. (At least in the Judeo-Christian culture, one of whose basic principle has been, at least until recently, solidarity.)

A basic question in our age is; “Can the community, the state, assure the availability of the new techniques for the masses?” It would have to use the funds dedicated to cultural policy, through state-financed general education. (One of the preferences of cultural policy in 1989–1990 was just that. After the appearance of the internet, a pioneering plan, called school-net, was introduced. But it remained an isolated idea and was later abandoned.) European society in general and Hungary in particular must decide if they want to spend funds for the establishment of new schools from the taxes of the community. This is the basis for the new generations growing up on the European continent to be competitive in the productive-cultural world market. This is also a condition for Hungarian children to become cultural carriers answering the demands of the information revolution, adjusted to Hungarian culture, in the 21^st century. The modernization of the culture of our mother tongue and the competitiveness of our thinking-production capacity are closely related phenomena.

*

Industrial-technological revolution, social and intellectual revolution. Their heroes are not agitators, eloquent public speakers. They are the men and women undertaking and willingly accepting quiet, daily labors, competition and continuous self-education. They are agriculturists who accept innovations, craftsmen among whom I grew up. They are those whose movements are attached to their tools, and the tools to fit their movements. They have adjusted to circumstances and to each other. I grew up among them, the experimenters, teachers and researchers, driven by an ardent desire to acquire knowledge. They have assimilated the knowledge of their masters and transmitted it to their students. I see and greet them every day; they are economists and officials, who do no more than service and maintain, and improve, through thousands of small innovations the conditions of worldly existence. They continue to believe that they, carriers of the results of technology, are working in our interests.

Begegnungen
Schriftenreihe des Europa Institutes Budapest, Band 12:147–148.

Hungary at the turn of the Millennium

Today Europe and the entire world are facing new challenges. The information revolution is more than merely an industrial-technological revolution; it is also a cultural revolution. With the invention of a new generation of microchips – in the early 1970’s – a new age has begun in the history of mankind and the culture of interhuman relations has been fundamentally altered. These changes have an impact on production, on social life, on the relations between individuals and states. With the acceleration of the process of globalization, every single local workplace is becoming part of the world-wide competition. The knowledge-radius of individuals is constantly expanding, people are capable of reviewing events happening in various parts of the world in seconds through travelling or telecommunications.

The continents (Europe among them), the national and state communities (including those of the Hungarians) and individuals (including ourselves as intellectuals), are facing new challenges. We must consider the new global processes, we must reconsider our new possibilities in the division of labor, and we must decide for ourselves what we really want to achieve. We are facing an imperative situation; together with the peoples of the continent – as well with the peoples of other cultures – we must determine what we should do.

Who should explore the alternatives becoming available for the continent, for the communities of individual nation states? The answer is: the intellectuals must do it! Above all, scholars and entrepreneurs should perform this task. We, scholars, are true cosmopolitan citizens – after all, our workshop is the entire globe – and we are also “patriots”, since we are also members of a given local and national culture. We are not thinking in terms of four-year electoral cycles as the political elites do; rather, our thinking is centered on humanity, the nation, the cultures of the world. These facts provide ample reason for intellectuals to attempt to ascertain the possibilities opening currently, and find the ”breakout points” for their respective communities.

In September 1996 as the new President of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, I suggested, that the members of the Academy create a National Strategic Research Program. Let us have the Academy become the advisor to the nation!

The research program started under the title, “Hungary at the Turn of Millennium.” We raised certain questions, such as ”What direction is the world taking, and what is our position in this process?” “What sort of conditions will we have to face as a member of the European Union?” What can we, Hungarians, expect in general from the Eastern enlargement of the European Union in areas such as agriculture and food production, information transmission, the maintenance and protection of the ecosystem? How about NATO and strategic defense water management, the maintenance of bio-diversity, energy resources and the politics of energy conservation? What about the future of the languages of small nations, health care social policies, the information revolution and the coming information society, etc.? Fourteen large projects were started and had been completed between 1997 and 2000. In each case, the result was the publication of monographs dealing with the respective issues.

The Europe Institute Budapest decided to participate in the dissemination of these new Hungarian research findings in foreign languages. The Europe Intsitute, as the strongest civil organisation in the field of European studies wishes to act as a mediator between Hungarian and European intellectual ventures and strategies.

Volume 6 of “Begegnungen” (1998) had already issued a programmatic study entitled ”Hungary at the Turn of the Millennium” (”Begegnungen,” Budapest, 1998, vol. 6, pp. 9-30). Upcoming volumes of “Begegnungen” will include studies prepared within the framework of this Strategic Research Programme (selected in consultation with the Advisory Council of the Programme) in English and German languages.

(G.)

Begegnungen
Schriftenreihe des Europa Institutes Budapest, Band 12:19–21.

FERENC GLATZ

Europa der Menschen

Begrüßungsworten

Geehrter Herr Präsident, werter Herr Minister, geehrter Herr Batliner!

Mit Freude begrüße ich unter uns Árpád Göncz, den Staatspräsidenten der Republik Ungarn, der im Laufe der vergangenen 10 Jahre – wie bekannt – sowohl in unserem Lande wie in der Region nicht nur als Politiker sondern ebenso als Intellektueller sehr viel im Interesse dessen unternahm, dass auch der Kultur und den Lebensverhältnissen größere Aufmerksamkeit gewidmet wird.

Gestatten Sie mir, herzlichst Herrn Minister Andrei Pleşu zu begrüßen, vor dessen Namen ich doppelt den Titel Minister setzen könnte, denn als wir uns vor 10 Jahren – d.h. 1989 – kennenlernten, war er der erste Kultusminister des neuen Rumäniens, mit dem wir seinerzeit so viele Pläne in bezug auf den kulturellen Aufschwung der mitteleuropäischen Völker schmiedeten. Und dabei waren wir beide uns im klaren darüber, dass wir uns als Intellektueller, als Philosoph, Kunsthistoriker bzw. als Historiker, nur für kurze Zeit in der Politik engagieren werden. Gegenwärtig versucht er als Außenminister des demokratischen Rumäniens alles in seinen Kräften Stehende zum Verständnis der Völker Mitteleuropas beizutragen.

Gestatten Sie mir, ebenso herzlich Herrn Vizekanzler Erhard Busek zu begrüßen, der 1989 als Kultusminister Österreichs und später dann als Vizekanzler gleichfalls bemüht war, in der nahezu zweihundertjährigen Streitfrage jene Strömung zu stärken, welche jene Meinung vertrat, dass Österreich sich für das friedliche Nebeneinander der ost-mitteleuropäischen Völker einzusetzen hat. Ich bin der festen Überzeugung, dass könnte er heute in einem anderen politischen Amt noch aktiver sein, dann unsere österreichischen Nachbarn im Bemühen um das Zueinanderfinden der ost-mitteleuropäischen Nationen auch bedeutend aktiver wären.

Es sei mir gestattet, János Martonyi, den Außenminister der Republik Ungarn zu begrüßen, von dem wir wissen, dass er dieses Amt zu einem Zeitpunkt übernahm, da die kompliziertesten Aufgaben auf die Administration des Ministeriums und den Minister persönlich warteten. Ungarn nämlich hat im Prozess der Integration in die Europäische Union die eigenen Interessen zu vertreten, hat sämtliche sich bietenden Möglichkeiten zu erkunden und zu nutzen, gleichzeitig zur Kenntnis nehmend, was die Welt konkret von uns erwartet.

Schließlich, werte Damen und Herren, begrüße ich aufs herzlichste Herrn Herbert Batliner nebst Gattin. Herrn Batliner, der einerseits einer der Gründer des Europa Institutes ist. Darüber hinaus hat er, – was ich persönlich als vielleicht noch wichtiger erachte –, in den vergangenen 15 Jahren bescheiden, seinen Namen nicht in den Vordergrund drängend, sehr viel im Interesse dessen getan, dass Ungarn und die ungarische Kultur mit der europäischen verknüpft wurde, hat Schulen und Stiftungen unterstützt – auf seine eigene, bescheidene Art und Weise.

Der Corvinus-Preis des Europa Institutes wurde von Herbert Batliner persönlich gestiftet, um ungarische und europäische Kultur mittels eines weiteren Stranges miteinander zu verbinden. Dieser Corvinus-Preis wird solchen Persönlichkeiten zuerkannt, die in ihren Bereichen der Kunst, Wissenschaft, Politik oder Wirtschaft tatkräftig und wesentlich zur Annäherung von europäischer und ungarischer Kultur beigetragen haben. Den ersten Corvinus-Preis erhielt der Regisseur und Oscar-Preisträger István Szabó, den diesjährigen hat das Kuratorium Andrei Pleşu zuerkannt. Es ist nicht meine Aufgabe, Herrn Vizekanzler Busek zuvorzukommen, der mit seiner Laudatio die Beweggründe des Kuratoriums erläutern wird, warum Herr Pleşu diesen Preis erhält.

Meine Gedanken streifen inzwischen ab, denn als ich mich auf den Weg zur Preisübergabe machte, zogen wieder einmal Bomber vom Typ F-18 gen Jugoslawien. Als wir vor zehn Jahren über die Möglichkeiten der Anpassung der Region an Europa sprachen, waren wir auf viele Probleme vorbereitet, nicht aber darauf, dass die Integration mit einem dritten Krieg im Europa des 20. Jahrhunderts einhergeht. Als wir, die hier anwesenden Freunde, vor zehn Jahren das Europa Institut gegründet haben, schwebte uns jenes Ziel vor Augen, in dieser Region Stützpunkte zu schaffen, mittels derer die Erfüllung der drei wichtigsten Aufgaben in diesem Bereich vorangetrieben werden könnten – die Realisierung der Marktwirtschaft, die Gestaltung der parlamentarischen Demokratie sowie die Verwirklichung von Modernisierung und Öffnung zur Welt. Ich bin der Ansicht, dass ein gewisser Abschnitt im Leben der Region abgeschlossen wurde. Nicht mehr rückgängig zu machen ist der politische Demokratisierungsprozess, unsere parlamentarischen Institutionen sind erstarkt, und gegenwärtig kann gesagt werden, dass Ungarn mit der Slowakei und Rumänien solche Nachbarn hat, die sich ihre Zukunft ebenfalls in einer Demokratie vorstellen. Wohl erstmals nach 150 Jahren bietet sich die Gelegenheit, unsere eigenen Wege zu finden, existiert die Marktwirtschaft nicht nur anderswo, sondern auch bei uns, und darüber hinaus ist eine wirtschaftlich-technische Modernisierung im Gange. Jetzt, zehn Jahre nach dem beschleunigten Systemwandel bin ich der Meinung, dass unsere Region einen neuen Abschnitt in Angriff nimmt, wobei sie keine andere Aufgabe mehr hat als Westeuropa auch. Wir müssen nicht den Anschluss finden, sondern gemeinsam jene Probleme bewältigen, die Westeuropa und unsere Region gleichermaßen auf die Probe stellen. Es stimmt zwar, dass die wirtschaftliche Konstruktion abgeschlossen ist – Euro und Europabank existieren, und seit Maastricht steht die politische Konstruktion. Doch haben wir uns jetzt die Frage zu stellen, was mit den Menschen wird, denn in diesem Europa leben Menschen, werden Menschen leben. Wie bewältigen wir Migration und soziale Probleme, Minderheitenkonflikte und Menschenrechtsprobleme? Leider befassen sich weder wissenschaftliche Europa-Programme noch sonstige zufriedenstellend mit diesen Themen. Ich bin deshalb der Meinung, dass es für die in den kommenden Jahren auf den politischen Schauplatz heraustretende bzw. bereits herausgetretene Generation eine der vorrangigsten Aufgaben ist, nach dem Europa der Techniker, Ökonomen und Juristen nun ein Europa der Menschen zu schaffen. Auch dieser Krieg auf dem Balkan zeugt meiner Ansicht nach davon, dass wir Europäer unsere Konflikte selbst lösen sollten und nicht andere, nicht von einem anderen Kontinent. Dies ist nicht europäischer Stolz allein, sondern die feste Überzeugung, dass nur wir fähig sind, gemeinsam einen entsprechenden Weg zu finden.

In diesem Sinne wünsche ich Herrn Pleşu, dem heute Geehrten, für sein weiteres Wirken wie bisher Erfolge bei der weiteren Verschmelzung der gemeinsamen Vergangenheit der kleinen Völker Mitteleuropas. Wir haben ja seit zehn Jahren schon immer wieder von neuem betont, dass uns mehr miteinander verbindet als voneinander trennt, es verbindet uns mehr mit den Rumänen, Slowaken, Kroaten, als uns voneinander trennt. Und, mich zumindest, verbindet mehr mit den Serben, gegen die wir jetzt einen staatlichen Krieg führen, als mich von ihnen trennt. Der Gelehrte, der Forscher lässt sich zwar von den Tatsachen leiten, kann aber selbstverständlich nie seine Gefühle und Erkenntnisse außer Acht lassen.

In diesem Sinne also, wie gesagt, möchte ich unseren werten Freund, Herrn Staatspräsident Árpád Göncz bitten, das Publikum anlässlich unserer heutigen Preisverleihung zu begrüßen.

Ich danke für Ihre Aufmerksamkeit.