Issues Accessible Online

Texts and articles

Miloš Havelka CHRISTIANE BRENNER, „Zwischen Ost und West“. Tschechische politische Diskuse 1945–1948

Miloš Havelka JIŘÍ BRABEC, Panství ideologie a moc literatury. Studie, kritiky, portréty (1991–2008)

Miloš Havelka MIROSLAV NOVÁK, Mezi demokracií a totalitarismem. Aronova politická sociologie industriálních společností 20. století

Miloš Havelka FRANTIŠEK KUTNAR, JAROSLAV MAREK, Přehledné dějiny českého a slovenského dějepisectví

Miloš Havelka PAVEL KOSATÍK, „Ústně více“. Šestatřicátníci. Román faktu

Miloš Havelka When and How Zdeněk Nejedlý Parted Company with the Goll School

This study distinguishes four stages in the development of Nejedlý’s historical work: positivist student, philosophizing historian, left-wing „realist“ and „awakener“ of a „socialist“ nation. It highlights a detailed analysis of Nejedlý’s arguments typifying the transition from the second to the third stage, which is characterized in this paper as a departure from the scientific principles of the „Goll school“. This period is typified by Nejedlý’s paper On the Meaning of Czech History (1913) and The End of Liberalism in Historiography (1921), in which Nejedlý bases himself both on Masaryk’s criticism and on his own interpretation of socialist ideas and liberalism. For his rejection of „Goll’s historiography“ and his objectivistic maxims, he devises the term „historical liberalism“, which he believes is supposedly based on the superficial „liberalism“ of historical knowledge. However, it turns out that neither in the third nor the fourth stage of his intellectual development was Nejedlý a Marxist as the term was understood at that time, but rather a belated socialist-oriented national „awakener“.

Miloš Havelka The ‘New Powers’ of Future Modernity

With a focus on the chapters about the Early Modern period in Loewenstein’s Víra v pokrok (Faith in Progress), the author discusses the theme of ‘new powers’ on the threshold of the process of modernization in Europe, that is, of disciplining and liberty. He places Loewenstein’s interpretations into the context of more recent socio-historical research and also early works (for example, Bertrand Russell’s Freedom and Organization, 1934), and aims at a description of Early Modern phenomena of civilization with the transformations of external and internal coercion, elements of competition and mutual dependence, the homogenization of man, disciplining as a prerequisite of civil society, and the open, or immanent, future as the spheres of life most proper to human beings.

Miloš Havelka Co kdyby to dopadlo jinak? Křižovatky českých dějin

Miloš Havelka STEFAN ZWICKER, „Nationale Märtyrer“: Albert Leo Schlageter und Julius Fučík. Heldenkult, Propaganda und Erinnerungskultur

Miloš Havelka JAN PATOČKA, Umění a čas, svazek 1–2; JAN PATOČKA, Češi, svazek 1–2

Miloš Havelka Knowledge – Memory – Identity and Several More General Considerations

Against the background of a recent discussion on the creation of an institute of ‘national memory’, this text analyses the broader issue of ‘memory’ and the politics of memory from sociological standpoints. It starts off with a general analysis of the relationships between memory, sources and historical knowledge, calls attention to the anthropological and cultural bases of the construction of memory and its ‘colonising’ and ‘isolating’ functions. It notes that deficits in the contents of individual memory and their contrafactual potential make it possible not only to legitimise political interests in various ways, but to view and evaluate analytical historical research in different ways as well. Under the heading ‘The Utraquism of Memory’, he then refers to the mutual conditionality of historical memory and ‘social forgetting’. The author elucidates the sociocultural foundations of their mutuality by means of concepts used in Jeffrey C. Alexander’s sociology of cultural traumas. In this connection, he then shows the relevance of memory both for the creation of a historical consciousness and the construction of a collective identity as well as a concrete form of solidarity.

Miloš Havelka A Friendly Response to the Friendly Reviewers and Critics

Miloš Havelka responds above all the the criticisms from Martin Putna and argues that his starting point for the study of the genesis of the dispute on the meaning of Czech history was not meta-ideological but based on the sociology of knowledge. He also gives the reasons why he did not include in the anthology texts replicating Kundera's essay of 1969, The Czech Fate, and why he also did not include texts reflecting the Marxist, primarily Nejedlý's. Reacting to Putna's criticisms relating to the unrepresentative character of the texts by Catholic authors, Havelka defends his choice and refers to the preface to the anthology, which explains in detail why he did not include texts by Zdeněk Kalista and Bohdan Chudoba.

Miloš Havelka Josef Pekař in the Post-velvet World of Czech Historiography

What was known as the "Goll School" and especially the most prominent representative of its first generation, Josef Pekař, for many years formed the main current of Czech conservative-Catholic historiography that developed in opposition to the Protestant-progressive concept of Czechoslovakia represented after Palacký above all by T.G. Masaryk. In many respects Marxist historiography drew on this latter school, and so the historical achievements of the Goll School were ideologically rejected and politically excluded. The "Velvet Revolution" opened up the possibility of an objective assessment of the contributions of the Goll School and especially the long banned Josef Pekař. With an eye to the literature that has so far been published on Pekař, this article seeks to show the state of research by offering an analysis of the various different areas of historical study addressed by Goll, and criticises continuing shortcomings in the three Pekař monographs that have hitherto been published. The article looks in particular at questions of Pekař's historical understanding of the concept and interpretation of the Hussite movement, the reconstruction of the concept and message of the unfinished third volume of Pekař's Knihy o Kosti, the interpretation of Pekař's political attitudes during the 1st World War and especially his conception of constitutional issues, his understanding of the nation and the associated questions of Pekař's nationalism, attitude to the Germans and also his demonstrable anti-semitism.

Miloš Havelka JIŘÍ ŠUBRT (ed.), Historické vědomí jako předmět badatelského zájmu: Teorie a výzkum

Miloš Havelka JOSEF KANDERT, Náboženské systémy. Člověk náboženský a jak mu porozumět

Miloš Havelka Is There a General History?

In connection with Horský’s contribution ‘“General History”, “Content-Oriented Philosophy” of History, and the Theory of Evolution’, Havelka considers the origins and content of general history and highlights the vagueness which characterised them in Czech historiographic discourse ever since the 1950s. He stresses differences between the terms ‘general history’ and ‘world history’ or rather our understanding of the ways in which one can or should progress from the factuality of particular historical events and their unrepeatable uniqueness in different places to their ‘general’ aspects and ‘unifying’ characteristics. In conjunction with this investigation, Havelka searches for the historical origins of use of the term ‘general history’ since the eighteenth century and traces the genesis of views which viewed the philosophy of history as the main route to knowledge of historical necessity. He contrasts these conceptions with the theoretically clearer and methodologically more sophisticated notion of ‘shared history’, which focuses on search for parallels and structural analogies between certain social, political, and civilisation processes that go beyond the schematic differences between national histories. Especially in the form of ‘comparative history’, its intentions and conclusions then also lead to a degree of generalising assessment.

Miloš Havelka PAVEL KOSATÍK, Jiný T.G.M