Transformation in East Central Europe: 1918 and 1989. A Comparative Approach

Abstract

The authors of the introduction to this special issue argue for a historicization of the concept of transformation by broadening our understanding of it to decrease its teleological spin. This allows us to discard the “zero hour” narrative and to rather consider phenomena that exist long before a “turn” or “revolution” accelerates the transformation process. The closely related terms of “continuity” and “discontinuity” can be relieved of their mandatory dialectical logic by introducing the concept of “adaptation” as an analytical instrument in order to explain what happens after a certain turning point. Consequently, a historicization of the concept of transformation, as the briefly presented case studies show, entails detachment from apodictic periodization and the narration of quasi-mechanized progress in order to specify every single field of accelerated change. However, this does not necessarily limit the usefulness of the concept, as examining individual cases using specific criteria and comparing and bundling them will contribute to a better understanding of societies in transformation as a whole.

Keywords:

• Transformation
• 1918
• 1989
• continuities
• discontinuities
• adaptation

Introduction

“Transformation studies”, so far predominantly undertaken by political scientists and economists, have mostly been linked with the political and economic changes of the “third wave of democratization”¹ following the collapse of the right-wing dictatorships in Southern Europe (Spain, Greece, Portugal), the military dictatorships in Latin America, or that of the Communist regimes following the events of 1989. However, the aim of this thematic issue is to argue for a historical approach to the notion of transformation by detaching it from certain political, economic or geographic events and by defining the concept of transformation more generally as a comprehensive, sustainable and irreversible process of intense change encompassing all areas of society, and hence the political, economic, social, and cultural spheres.

Broadening our understanding of this concept may firstly help decrease the teleological spin which is often automatically associated with the concepts of transformation or transition. Secondly, this allows us to discard the “zero hour” narrative and rather consider phenomena that originate long before a “turn” or “revolution” accelerates the transformation process. Thirdly, the closely related terms of “continuity” and “discontinuity” can be relieved of their mandatory dialectical logic by introducing the concept of “adaptation” as an analytical instrument in order to explain what happens after a certain turning point.

In order to test these assumptions and to broaden the use of the concept of transformation to further historical events, we have concentrated on two major events of European and global history of the twentieth century from a Central European perspective: We compare transformation processes surrounding the events of 1989 – which we consider a major instance of transformation in (contemporary) history – and 1918: both caesuras are essential markers of the collapse of empires, political ideologies, and the re-arrangement of all areas of social life.

Padraic Kenney was the first to write a comprehensive historical analysis on transformation processes in “Eastern Europe since 1989”, as his subtitle suggests, although the analysis starts with pre-revolutionary processes of decline that led up to the revolutionary events of 1989 and beyond.² Most recently, Philipp Ther has argued in his prize-winning publication on “The new order on the old continent” for the historicization of the transformation of East Central Europe around 1989.³ He advocates an interpretation of transformation as a process that encompassed all spheres of life and that started long before 1989. Also, in his understanding, it was not confined to Eastern Europe. Rather, he uses the term “co-transformation” to signify the impact of the transformation not only on Western Europe, but also globally. Studies dedicated to the transformation period after World War I do not always use the concept as explicitly as for example Verena Dohrn und Gertrud Pickhan do in their volume Transit und Transformation: Osteuropäisch-jüdische Migranten in Berlin 1918–1939⁴ or, most recently, in a Central European context, a survey of Transylvania⁵ in the Interwar period. However, whether the term transformation is specifically used or not, the concept has been employed for developments indicated by the chiffre ‘1918’.⁶ Concentrating again rather on political and economic history, Adam Tooze pinpoints his recent history of the transformation or “remaking of Global Order” to the years of 1916–1931,⁷ whereas Erez Manela narrowed the time span down to a mere four years.⁸

While the transformation processes around 1918 and 1989 are relevant to European (and even global) history as a whole, both caesuras had a special impact on East Central Europe: both events signalled a rapid change in the spheres of administration, economy, ideology, justice, mentality, politics, social structure, etc. The year 1918 signifies a time of profound change in East Central Europe. The Habsburg, Russian, and Ottoman Empires, which had dominated the region throughout the long nineteenth century, dissolved and new nation-states evolved. It was also a time of significant change in the social and cultural spheres, changing everything from women’s voting rights and gender relations to styles in music, dancing, painting or fashion. Unsurprisingly, the contemporary discourses – public as well as specialized ones – were dominated by the comprehensive changes with which people were faced. Of course, none of these changes were as sudden and “out of the blue” as contemporaries may have experienced them.⁹ Developments during the last decades of the three continental empires laid the ground for many of these changes, while the war itself and its revolutionary aftermath may have served as a “catalyst”.

Therefore we will shift Eric Hobsbawn’s cornerstones of a “short twentieth century”, namely 1914 as the beginning of World War I, and 1991 as the final fall of the Soviet Union, to 1918 and 1989, in order to take greater account of the focus of this issue. The – implicit – comparison of the major events that tend to be compressed into the figures “1918” or “1989” also overrules the East-West divide that seems to be inherent in all discussions about 1989. Although – as specialists on East Central Europe – we largely focus on those regions that were part of “Eastern Europe” before 1989, the comparison with 1918 somewhat overcomes the limitation to a certain political dimension and rather asks for regional specifics beyond the cold war rhetoric.

Nevertheless, both caesuras merely mark the peak of such periods of accelerated change, as “transformation” cannot be characterized as a contingent, highly concentrated phase of comprehensive upheaval, but must be seen as a more or less enduring process which is set in motion long before a remarkable “turn” takes place and which ends with a certain, sometimes even significant temporary distance to this moment. Some of the publications mentioned above have paid tribute to this perspective by omitting from their title the powerful numeric keyword altogether in favour of a more precise notion of temporal durée. In the case of this volume, since we lack uniform alternative dates appropriate for all the various case studies, we have decided to use the numeric keywords “1918” and “1989” as metaphors for a longer, if unspecified length of time.

Accordingly, the papers will discuss the concept of transformation in a broader sense, examining specific as well as generalizable factors in order to define it. Our case studies will consider the temporal limits of and processes in transformation, its specificity as well as its agents and agency. Also, we will offer a shift in perspective by asking how transformation processes were experienced by contemporaries, as we will examine discourses on transformation.

Case studies in context

The concept of transformation will be tested as a tool for historical approaches by considering economic, social, political, and cultural examples in a synchronically and diachronically comparative perspective. However, by comparing two exemplary cases of transformation (1918 and 1989), we hope to discuss “transformation” as a historical concept that is not per se linked to one specific time or region.

Different methods and their hybrid application (discourse, institutions, biography, or space) will provide exemplary case studies of transformation in the fields of economic (Marcus), cultural (Lemmen), political (Kührer-Wielach), and social (Leyk) history, while the case studies concentrate geographically on Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Romania.

Florian Kührer-Wielach (Munich) addresses in his analysis the relationship between raising hope for social advancement as a strategy of political mobilization, the ensuing disappointment and the increasing loss of confidence in democratic order in the discourse on the post-imperial national integration process of “Greater Romania” after World War I. In analyzing correspondent aspects of the contemporary perception of the transformation process he provides an example of how comprehensive change doesn’t necessarily lead to an improvement of a society’s situation.

Nathan Marcus (Moscow) offers an economic survey of hyperinflation in interwar Austria. Employing the concept of a “catalyst”, he describes this phenomenon as not causing but hastening the post-imperial transformation process in the successor state of the Habsburg Empire.

Sarah Lemmen (Bremen) covers the field of cultural history in her examination of the changing Czech national identity in a global context, in the context of both the Habsburg Empire and the Czechoslovak republic. By focusing on economic and colonial debates and on travelogues on overseas regions, the debates she traces discuss the global position of both the Czech nation and the Czechoslovak state, placing them alternatively in Eastern and Western Europe, and thus imagining the Czechs both as a “small” and a “great” nation.

Václav Šmidrkal (Prague) undertakes a diachronic comparison of the Czechoslovak Armed forces after 1918 and 1989. His approach demonstrates how an institution can contribute to both integration and disintegration: while after 1918 the founding of the Czechoslovak Army can be seen as one of the agents of national consolidation, after 1989 the disintegration of the Czechoslovak Army as one of only few genuine Czechoslovak organisations became a motor of change leading to the split of the Czechoslovak federation.

Aleksandra Leyk (Warsaw) examines the sociological discourse on Polish transformation after 1989. Analyzing the concepts of transformation within this specialized, professional discourse, she reveals the links between the history of transformation, professional and public debates, and the social understanding of transformation in general.

Historicizing the concept of transformation

By historicizing the concept of transformation, we aim at two things: on the one hand, we want to “unspecify” the concept and detach it from earlier contexts; on the other hand, we want to specify it by naming certain criteria. By “unspecifying” it, we want to make it useful for any region and any period of time. At the same time, we intend to detach it from any specific sphere of social life (since so far, it has been used mainly to trace political and economic changes), and instead open it up to political, economic, cultural, and social spheres. This should also leave any kind of teleological explanation outside the picture. We would like to join the debate, on the basis of the case studies in this volume, with the following considerations:

In order to differentiate a specific transformation process from ordinary “change over time”, it is necessary to elaborate on the complementary issues of temporal delimitations (caesuras and durability), the nature of change (transitional processes and contingency), as well as perceptive aspects (subjectivity and asynchronism):

Caesuras and durability

When we examine temporal demarcations of transformation in this volume, the most obvious temporal landmark in all transformation processes is – unsurprisingly – a clear, emblematic caesura (1918, 1989) taken as the crucial moment of such a process. Corresponding denominations such as “revolution”, “turn”, “collapse”, or more specific terms such as the German “Wende” stress the initiative nature of such caesuras: in our case studies, this refers mainly to the radical political changes due to the newly established political order both in 1918 and in 1989, such as the political realignments in Transylvania becoming a part of “Greater Romania”, the debates about the European and global role of the newly founded Czechoslovakia in 1918, the reformation of the armed forces in different political systems and ideologies, the economic crises following or preceding the political turmoil or, in general, the radical change of the discursive framework in transformation as a political and/or academic topic. Only very few of these processes, however, can be considered fully disconnected from the situation before the “great divide” of 1918 or 1989 took place. Even though we obviously do need caesuras to distinguish “ordinary change” from a period of “transformation” (to be used as a heuristic tool), the long-term character of “comprehensive and sustainable change” becomes clearly visible in our case studies. Nevertheless, caesuras always have a strong revolving effect, resulting in a relatively stable development (“path dependence”) after an intensive phase of decision-making: only the collapse of the Habsburg Empire allowed (or, in the Austrian case: forced) the rise of Central Europe’s nation-states, just as the cease of communist rule within a few months provided the basis for implementation of the “neoliberal” order.

Processes and contingency

True to the historical approach of always looking for both continuities and discontinuities, the concept of transformation questions, as outlined above, the narrative of a “zero hour” and rather emphasizes the quality of the relationship between continuities and discontinuities across caesuras such as 1918, 1989 or other emblematic moments of change such as 1789 or 1945. What usually follows is a master narrative of transition towards a society and individual advancement by radical change both in the interwar and the post-1989 context, linked with the idea of liberation from “foreign” rule and national convergence. As new systems and their new (or just co-transformed) elites usually derive their legitimacy from the irreversibility of such processes, narratives of transformation tend to concentrate on discontinuities. In contrast, phenomena of continuity are often described as mere relicts of an “old system” within a “new system”. A closer look at such phenomena of “continuity”, however, shows that narratives of simple “persistence” prove to be inadequate: shouldn’t also “relicts” be subject to new circumstances, new perspectives, and new rules, inevitably seized by the comprehensive nature of a transformation process? The question of belonging demonstrates the ambivalent effects oscillating between continuity and ruptures: while especially after 1918 the issue of citizenship or of belonging to a majority or a minority group changed radically with the rise or expansion of new nation states, affections of regional coinage, and ethnic belonging seemed to remain relatively static.

This divergence between asserting a teleological course of transition and a factual transformation without a predetermined conclusion is associated with the contingent nature of the caesura: even though change had been expected and even promoted in the forefront of such “revolutions” and “turns”, neither the moment nor the quality of it could be determined in advance. Thus actors of transformation rarely had a detailed transition plan drawn up in advance and initially had to re-act to the events. Especially discourses of failure thwart the narrative of inexorable progress, as can be found for instance in the atrophic vision of Czechoslovakia as a leading nation in Europe. Therefore, we would like to introduce the more open term adaptation to the research discourse on historical transformation, which signifies as a sort of “diachronic cultural transfer” the adjustment of that which already exists to new surroundings as opposed to a clear division into a “before” and “after”, as shown in the articles of this issue.

Subjectivity and asynchronism

The various transformation fields encompassed by a historical reading of the concept may have started at different times and intensified at different moments. Moreover, defining “transformation” remains a subjective act, depending on the one hand on the unit of analysis and on the other on the intentions either of the actor commenting on change in progress or the ex-post analyzer striving for a solid working definition oscillating between practicability and perceived reality. Thus, the definition of the end of the process is just as individual as marking the “beginning before the beginning” and subject to the actor’s perspective and intentions concerning the research question.

From this perspective, “transformation” cannot be interpreted as a monolithic process embracing all areas of society or – as in the case of “1918” and “1989” – even entire world regions. Rather, transformation may happen at different moments and at different paces: it is obvious that for the Czechoslovakian army, 1992, the year of the state’s disintegration, had a more significant impact than the ideological and systemic turnaround of 1989. Hence it might be more appropriate to use the plural term transformations (even if it is less practical), since various processes of transformation do not run completely synchronically.

Again avoiding teleological approaches, the process itself cannot be interpreted as a steady and uniform procedure, since it is rather characterized by accelerating and decelerating moments, although paradigmatic change is visible in retrospect. An outstanding example is provided by Nathan Marcus when he defines hyperinflation in post-war Austria as neither the cause nor the result of transformation, but as its “catalyst”. On the other hand, one has to consider decelerating factors such as economic and moral crises, changing actors, legal frameworks, or negotiated adjustments, as demonstrated by the discourse of Polish sociologists, who only gradually shifted their interpretation of post-1989 transformation from “shock therapy” to more complex approaches.

Consequently, a historicization of the concept of transformation, as our case studies show, acquires detachment from apodictic periodization and the narration of quasi-mechanized progress in order to specify every single field of accelerated change. However, this does not necessarily limit the usefulness of the concept, as examining individual cases using specific criteria as well as comparing and bundling them will contribute to a better understanding of societies in transformation as a whole.

Acknowledgements

All articles in this volume were first presented at the 6^th Graduate Conference in European History (GRACEH) at the University of Vienna in 2012 on “Transformation in European History: Preconditions – Processes – Perceptions”. We thank Philipp Ther, University of Vienna, and László Kontler, Central European University in Budapest, for their support, input and suggestions on the conception of the issue. Thanks also go to the Institute for German Culture and History of Southeastern Europe at Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München for financial support.

Notes

1. Huntington, Samuel. The Third Wave. Democratization in the late Twentieth Century. Norman: Univ. of Oklahoma Press, 1991.

2. Kenney, Padraic. The Burdens of Freedom. Eastern Europe since 1989. London, New York: Zed Books, 2006.

3. Ther, Philipp. Die neue Ordnung auf dem alten Kontinent. Eine Geschichte des neoliberalen Europa. Berlin: Suhrkamp, 2014.

4. Verena Dohrn, Gertrud Pickhan (eds). Transit und Transformation: Osteuropäisch-jüdische Migranten in Berlin 1918–1939. Göttingen: Wallstein-Verl., 2010.

5. Kührer-Wielach, Florian. Siebenbürgen ohne Siebenbürger?: Zentralstaatliche Integration und politischer Regionalismus nach dem Ersten Weltkrieg. München: De Gruyter Oldenburg, 2014.

6. The political scientist Dieter Segert uses the concept of transformation to confer to the political changes both around 1918 and 1989. Segert, Dieter. Transformationen in Osteuropa im 20. Jahrhundert. Wien: facultas.wuv, 2013.

7. Tooze, Adam. The Deluge. The Great War and the Remaking of Global Order, 1916–1931. London: Allen Lane, 2014.

8. Manela, Erez. “Dawn of a New era: The “Wilsonian Moment” in Colonial Contexts and the Transformation of World Order, 1917–1920”. In Competing Visions of World Order: Global Moments and Movements, 1880s–1930s. ed. Sebastian Conrad. New York, NY: Palgrave McMillan, 2007, pp. 121–49.

9. Blom, Philipp. The Vertigo Years: Change and Culture in the West, 1900–1914. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2008; Blom, Philipp. Fracture: Life and Culture in the West, 1918–1938. New York, NY: Atlantic Books Ltd., 2015.