Key Concepts of Romanian History: Alternative Approaches to Socio-Political Languages

Is Rewriting Romanian History Useful? The Evolution of Socio-Political Concepts and Alternative Interpretations

Is Rewriting Romanian History Useful? The Evolution of Socio-Political Concepts and Alternative Interpretations Victor Neumann Scholarly publications of the last few decades prove that worldwide historiography has diversified its research tools and opted for fundamental methodological changes as far as approaching the past is concerned. Thanks to conjoined efforts on the part of historians, linguists, and philosophers, history has been significantly enriched and has gained a respectable status in the hierarchy of humanist sciences. Historians have become particularly drawn to interrogations, problematizations, and innovatory explanations. Their aim is not simply to narrate facts, but to comprehend them, to thoroughly investigate them and to ultimately formulate judgments of value. In order to be credible and persuasive, historical enquiry has to critically examine sources, objectively reflect upon them, honestly focus upon historical contexts, and employ adequate concepts and languages. In this respect, an understanding of Romania’s history in a European context requires a selection of the basic concepts to be used. The study of these concepts reveals how languages and mental reflexes have been formed. Many fundamental concepts are controversial in the Romanian milieu and thus they incite numerous debates, mostly on political topics. I have considered that specialists, and especially those who are not initiated in this field, would need a comprehensive explanation of these concepts in order to accurately understand them. Some key-concepts—such as those we have selected and presented in this volume—are meant to open research in this area in light of acknowledging the evolution of their meanings during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. They clarify socio-political phrases of the past, and justify the aim of providing a methodological update to contemporary Romanian historiography. This is the case, for instance , for the concepts of property, transition, Europe, politics, nation, 2 Victor Neumann national specificity, neam (Romanian for kin), totalitarianism, history, society , civil society, modernity, tradition, and constitution. Key Concepts of Romanian History. Alternative Approaches to SocioPolitical Languages is a first-hand contribution to the process of updating the research methodology to be employed in the social and humanist sciences in Romania. Following the content of the studies from this volume, I am confident that a Romanian conceptual history can contribute to the understanding of socio-political languages in their evolution since the beginning of the modern era, as well as to the formulation of a working hypothesis concerning linguistic transformation. The future projects of Romania are closely linked, on the one hand, to a new way of interpreting history in the sense promoted by Reinhart Koselleck—that is, following the future’s past (Vergangene Zukunft)—and on the other hand, to the need to re-negotiate the fundamental concepts so that Romanian socio-political phrases, and Romanian culture in general, can earn the chance of becoming convergent with the European scene. Ever since the Enlightenment, history has been a dynamic field of study not only in regards to the acquisition of information, but especially as a necessary scholarly endeavor serving the need to unveil and define human thought and action.1 In Reinhart Koselleck’s words: One cannot deduce the meaning of actual long-term practice which gradually changed from the documents proper. One needs to undertake a preliminary stage which is predominantly theoretical and terminological. What proves to be the case of a history of concepts refers one to a clearly delimited linguistic space and to an empirical practice only perceptible through the medium of language. This stands proof of innovatory impulses meant to sanction or initiate new experiences; however , these means do not yet fully justify the fact that this is history properly speaking.2 1 Starting with the eighteenth century, the concept of history became distinct from that of literature, being associated with knowledge based upon research and science. More information on the evolution of the concept within modern socio-political languages can be found in Reinhart Koselleck, “Geschichte” in Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe, Vol. 2, 593717 . 2 Koselleck, Begriffsgeschichten, 29: “[...] was sich andererseits Begriffsgeschichtlich aufweisen lässt—am uberlieferten Schriftgut—, das verweist uns zwar auf den sprachlich umgrenzten Erfahrungsraum und bezeugt innovative Vorstösse, die neue Erfahrungen registrieren oder initieren mochten, aber der Rückschluss auf eine tatsächliche Geschichte ist damit noch nicht zulläsig. Die Differenz zwischen Handeln und Reden, die wir für die sich vollziehende Geschichte aufgewiesen haben, sie verhindert auch im Blick zur ück, dass die gesellschaftliche ‘Wirklichkeit’ jemals mit der Geschichte ihrer sprachlichen artikulation konvergiert.” [52.14.130.13] Project MUSE (2024-04-25 02...