Ideological Regulation of Social Sciences during Czech Normalization (1969-1989)

OATES-INDRUCHOVÁ, Libora. Ideological Regulation of Social Sciences during Czech Normalization (1969-1989). In Die wissenschaftliche Selbstbeschreibung der sozialistischen Gesellschaft: Soziologie und Ethnologie/Ethnographie in Ostmittel- und Südosteuropa 1945-1989, Collegium Carolinum, Bad Wiessee, Germany. 2008.

Základní údaje

Originální název

Ideological Regulation of Social Sciences during Czech Normalization (1969-1989)

Název česky

viz angl.

Název anglicky

see the orig.

Autoři

OATES-INDRUCHOVÁ, Libora

Vydání

Die wissenschaftliche Selbstbeschreibung der sozialistischen Gesellschaft: Soziologie und Ethnologie/Ethnographie in Ostmittel- und Südosteuropa 1945-1989, Collegium Carolinum, Bad Wiessee, Germany, 2008

---

Další údaje

Typ výsledku

Prezentace na konferencích

Utajení

není předmětem státního či obchodního tajemství

Organizační jednotka

Fakulta sociálních studií

Klíčová slova anglicky

science policy, censorship, Czech normalization

Příznaky

Mezinárodní význam

---

Anotace

V originále

The paper will outline the main features of institutional regulation of social sciences during normalization, that is, the period between 1969 and 1989, based on archival research and own interview material. The relationship of the regime to academia determined the form and process of regulation of social sciences from the defeat of the Prague Spring to the demise of the regime. Although normalization began in social sciences almost a year after the Soviet-led invasion in August 1968, it managed to take over upper layers of institutional hierarchy and subjugate the direction of social science research, as well as the flow of intellectual communication within another year. Over the whole period the Party developed and applied a system of asserting its will from the intellectual „centre“ to the „periphery“, through which it communicated its demands gradually from the institutional heads to the individual members of the academic community. This basic process was complemented with other strategies of increasing ideological control of academic research and university education. Although the language of regulatory documents speaks of the deepening of normalizing efforts, a more detailed examination of the trajectory of one document on the delimitation of research directions shows how the cumbersome nature of the whole system made its surveillance efforts inefficient. Gradually, two discourses sliding against each other developed: the dominant discourse of Communist power and a resistant discourse of „common“ researchers who participated in the dominant discourse on the surface by being employed in its institutions, but who at the same time developed strategies of mutual communication, professional survival and negotiation with the dominant discourse. A question for further research remains where the two discourses connected, where they clashed and where they perhaps complemented each other.

Česky

viz angl.

Anglicky

see the orig.