Construction and Reconstruction: Women, Family, and Politics in
Central Europe, 1945–1998
Conference at the Goethe Institut in Budapest, December 3–4, 1998
The Program on Gender and Culture of the Central European University
inBudapest, together with the Social Science Department of the AustrianInstitute
of South Eastern and Eastern European Studies and the Feminist Section
of the Hungarian Sociological Association hosted this two-day conference,
which was divided into four panels, each with its own theme. Altogether,
fifteen papers and two country reports presented information about women
in Austria, Bulgaria, Hungary, Serbia, and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,
but general comparisons between Eastern and Western Europe were als drawn.
The first day of the conference was divided into two panels: “Women
in Men’s Movements,” and “Reconstructing Femininity after 1945.” Speakers
included Andrea Petô, Borbála Juhász, Marina
Blagojevic´ and Mária Adamik. The topics discussed on
this day ranged from “Women in the Hungarian Communist Movement,” to “The
Politics of Family.” The second day of the conference was again divided
into two panels: “The Family as Fiction,” and “The Family as Reality,”
and speakers included Mónika Bernold, Péter György,
Júlia Szalai and Olga Tóth. The topics discussed on
this day ranged from “The Austrian Family as Seen on TV,” to “Family Patterns
in Hungary.” The conference ended with two country reports, one on
Austria and the other on Bulgaria.
The object was to unite specialists currently researching women in
politics and women in the family and to have an open forum for the exchange
of information and ideas. The conference also sought to raise both
current and historical topics in an attempt to visualize the broader historical
role of women in society. Many of the issues discussed were those which
have direct relevance to current policy making, and some of the results
were surprising. For example, Júlia Szalai argued that women in
today’s Hungarian economy have a better chance for economic survival than
men do because of their participation in the informal economy. On the other
hand, Olga Tóth argued that many Hungarian women get married because
of the greater chances for economic success or stability which marriage
entails. Mária Neményi’s paper was based on oral interview
research with two generations of women from the post World War Two period.
She concluded that women from the older generation were not able to organize
their family lives the way they would have liked, probably because the
demands of socialism were so great. However, her study also concluded that
the younger generation of women perceived that they lived within an egalitarian
society and were never forced to making either/or choices in life.
These ideal changes were not found in other studies. Marina Blagojevic´
examined family life in contemporary Serbia and discussed how cultural
and social conditions promote pornography, kitsch, and cultural violence.
In this environment, women’s bodies are often a field upon which actions
related to these phenomena are played out. She also coined the term
“micro-matriarchy,” which identifies the family unit as mother-centered,
but with mothers assuming power through self-sacrifice.
Comparisons between East and West were drawn by several of the participants.
Mária Adamik argued that gender issues in Eastern Europe are often
unidentified by Western feminists. For example, in the West, paid maternity
leave is a factor which feminists perceive as a sign of women’s emancipation,
whereas in the East, it has been perceived as a method for flushing women
out of the labor market. Heidrun Schulze also looked at differences
between the East and the West, such as the perception of abortion laws
and the exaggeration of the role of family within Eastern society.
Women’s participation in politics was a major theme best explored by
Maria Rosslhumer and Andrea Petô. Rosslhumer examined women’s
participation in Austria’s male dominated Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ).
Her study was confronted with several problems including a problem of sources
(for example, there are no sources that examine why women join or leave
parties), and she had problems with setting up and keeping interviews with
the busy female politicians she wanted to speak with. Her study revealed
the disturbing conclusion that it is currently more difficult than ever
before for contemporary female politicians to become members of the Party
because they are stigmatized as ’angry, unwomanly feminists’ by Party members.
Andrea Petô’s paper was based on two testimonies of women in the
Hungarian Communist Movement. She examined the relationship between their
private subordination to their communist lovers and their public subordination
as women within the communist movement.
Finally, Borbála Juhász gave a paper about women’s participation
in the 1956 Revolution in Hungary. Based on evidence found in the Oral
History Institute’s archives, she concluded that public memory did not
“remember” the average woman, but remembered mythical ones. One example
of this is the “amazon fighter” woman who was remembered because of her
“masculine” cruelty. Juhász’s research found a surprising absence
in public memory about women’s role in the revolution. “Women” as a group,
and women’s individual experiences were never remembered, even though women
played a significant role in the revolution.
This event conference was one part of a series of conferences held
in Sofia, Budapest, and Bratislava, with a final one in Vienna. Each conference
will result in a collection of papers that will be published in the near
future by The Austrian Institute of Eastern and South–Eastern European
Studies.
Haynal Laczy – Papp
Psychoanalysis, Literary Theory, and Gender Studies
Janus Pannonius University, Pécs, November 12–13 1998
Janus Pannonius University in Pécs organized a conference on
a topic quite unique for East Central Europe: “Psychoanalysis, Literary
Theory, and Gender Studies”. It was unique not so much because of the particular
fields it encompassed, but because it brought together these three fields,
none of which wore regarded very favorably in the pre-1989 period. It was
therefore all the more rewarding to encounter such high academic standards
in the majority of papers presented during the two-day event. Even more
encouraging was the large number of postgraduate students among the conference
speakers. This provides a promising foundation for the future development
of the three disciplines and their mutual academic exchange in Hungary
(and perhaps even in the whole region of East Central Europe).
The conference was co-organized by the Theoretical Psychoanalysis PhD
Program, the Literary Theory PhD Program, the Department of English Literatures
and Cultures (all Janus Pannonius University, Pécs), and the Program
on Gender and Culture (Central European University, Budapest). The participants
included scholars from other Hungarian academic institutions, such as Eötvös
Loránd University, Budapest, Kossuth Lajos University, Debrecen,
and József Attila University of Szeged, and international researchers
currently based in Hungary.
There were certainly some organizational shortcomings, but on the whole,
the atmosphere was genuinely open, lively, and productive—characteristics
often absent in more professionally organized events. A more detailed Call
for Papers would probably have helped to concentrate the focus of the papers.
Some of speakers failed to send the organizers abstracts of their proposed
talks, which would have helped their better distribution among and withing
the different sessions.
The first day was devoted to “Theories of Gender”. Most papers were
interdisciplinary in the sense that they explored the intersecting elements
of psychoanalysis, literary theory, and gender studies, although some speakers
tended rather to draw on only one or two of the disciplines. The first
presentations by Miglena Nicholchina, Kalina Kamenova and Emese Lafferton
chartered the scope proposed in the conference title, and set the tone
for further discussions. Afternoon presentations ranged from introductory
accounts of feminist uses of psychoanalysis (Valéria Szabó)
to elaborate discussions of a particular psychoanalytic problem and its
application to literature (László Sári).
Naomi Segal (Univ. of Reading, UK), the keynote speaker of the conference,
opened the second day’s discussion of “Gendered Bodies, Cultural Contexts”
with a textual interpretation, “Adulterous Triangles for the 80s and 90s:
Fatal Attraction and The Piano, a feminist-psychoanalytic reading”. Her
contribution explored the changing models of femininity and masculinity
as represented by the two films, while contextualizing them within the
tradition of the European novel. This longer presentation was followed
by several short ones, generally focusing on one or two of the disciplinary
frameworks proposed in the conference title. This session was perhaps the
most heterogeneous in its range of topics. As it was, the questions from
the audience had to shift between such disparate topics as value systems
of young Hungarian women (Anna Kende) and the feminist use of post-structuralist
theory (Carol Harrington), instead of going into a particular set of issues
in depth.
A lesson in time-keeping was given by Miglena Nikolchina, who moderated
this session, after the experience of the previous day, when the papers
ran an hour or more over the scheduled time. Some speakers may not have
managed to finish their papers or they had to rush through them to fit
in the twenty-minute slots. Nevertheless, the strict time-keeping was appreciated
by most participants, because this always makes for a professional conference
and helps to maintain its productive momentum. The other moderators then
followed suit and the rest of the conference proceeded as planned.
The last main topic, “Gender and Literature” brought together papers
with varying subjects and approaches (not literary in all cases), but all
marked by the sophistication of academic inquiry. The literary papers,
with the exception of Adam Bzoch’s innovative analysis of Gottfried Benn’s
poem “Regressiv”, drew on Anglo-American and Hungarian writing. In one
or two instances, the papers were inquiries into literary history or close
readings of texts rather than theoretical discussions, but these were,
perhaps, welcome and pleasant distractions from the “heavy” theorizing.
The variety of discussions at the conference certainly created incentives
for participants from different fields to exchange ideas with the presenters
even after the conference was over. It is a pity that the moderators did
not mention the speakers’ institutions and research interests when introducing
them. This would have facilitated professional contacts afterwards and
would have given an idea about the academic institutions represented. But,
this should be amended by the publication of the proceedings, which is
currently in preparation.
Libora-Oates Indruchová
Pardubice University,
Czech Republic and
Collegium Budapest
http://www.c3.hu/scripta