Studiul lui Michael Shafir dezleagă o parte din misterele anemicei dizidențe intelectuale din anii 80

de Sorin Adam Matei

Publicat la 15-11-2010 | 0 comentarii

Michael Shafir

Michael Shafir, prefațatorul acestui volum, punea încă din 1983 pe masă o interpretare puternică și binevenită a lipsei de apetit pentru rezistența culturală reală în fața asaltului totalitar din anii 80. El propunea ipoteza unei atitudini de ketman, așa cum era aceasta descrisă de Ceszlaw Milosz, in Gândirea captivă, reluată și de alți autori de studii românistice. Un Ketman este un intelectual sau teolog care una spune și alta gândește. Ketmanii au fost prima dată identificați în Levant, unde șiiții liberali trebuiau să se prezinte în straie ortodoxe ca să supraviețuiască intelectual. Această teoria este foarte intersantă, pentru că poate explica atât pe Adrian Păunescu, cât și jurnalul de la Păltiniș, care ar fi, în ceea ce privește strategiile culturale și intelectuale, două versiuni ale aceluiași mental colectiv.

The role played by intellectuals in the four main political earthquakes that shook postwar Eastern Europe Woland and Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in the 1960s and, again, Poland in the late 1970s and early 1980s) is widely acknowledged. The Polish Solidarnosc would probably have fared differently had it not been for the alliance between workers and intellectuals, the birth certificate of which was the September’ 976 manifest of solidarity with striking workers, basical ly the founding charter of the intellectual KOR (Workers’ Defense Committee). In neighboring Czechoslovakia, Hussak’s regime seems incapable of quelling the dissent manifested by that phoenix of the 1960s, „Charter 77.” Intellectual didsent since Stalin, however, has proceeded at an uneven pace in Eastern Europe. In Albania, for example, the Stalinist legacy remains strong, as it does to a lesser degree in Bulgari”, Romania, and Ea st Germany. The other states of Eastern Europe-Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, and Yugoslavia have moved furthest in the direction of de-Stalinization . Compared w ith such countries, the story of Romanian intellectual dissent is unimpressive, to say the least. In this article I will examine the main factors that keep the Romanian intelligentsia from pursuing a self-assertive course in its relation ship with the Communist party, and, by implication, from acting as a catalyst in bringing about state-society confrontations.
With this purpose in mind, I will provide an analysis of the Romanian intellectual-political subculture.

…

Diss imulation may be closely connected with another aspect of Romanian politica l culture mentioned above, namely with the historical
imprint left by the political culture of foreign rulers. Indeed, the „Ketman,” that strange behavioral pattern so vividly desc ribed by Czeslav Milosz,” in which one poses as ” believer” although neither actor nor audience really expect internalization of values, originated in the Near East. The ” Ketman” also establishes a relationship of patronage, whereupon significant material advantages are bestowed on the ” new believer” who has agreed to pose as supporter of the powe rs that be. The Romanian language has, in facl, an idiomatic expression of its own for the same phenomenon : „a se turci ” (to become a Turk). This expression has two different, but related, meanings: to become a convert to Islam, and to sell oneself.

The Romanian intellectuals in general, and the creative intelligentsia in particular, were by no means immune to these traditions. Dissimulation, Ketman, and patronage were already established behavioral patterns by the beginning of the century, when Radulescu-Mutru wrote: ”Justice! Public institutions! . .. ‘Do you have somebody at the Court of Justice ?’ ‘Do you have somebody at the prefecture ?’

The incentive to „a se turci” was not to be easily dismissed either. The customarily employed ·’positive sanctions” bestowed on the politically submissive in Eastern Europe were apparently higher in Romania than elsewhere. A group of Polish writers who visited Bucharest, Professor lonescu was told by a writer who defected in 1960, remarked to their Romanian hosts that while the Dej regime ” fed writers better, the Communists in Poland allowed their writers to bark freely.”

Restul articolului lui Michael ShafirPOLITICAL CULTURE, INTELLECTUAL DISSENT, AND INTELLECTUAL CONSENT: THE CASE OF ROMANIA, ORBIS, 1983

Articole pe teme similare:

• Profesorul Shafir va prezida un colocviu despre populismul în Estul Europei
• Michael Shafir îl întreabă pe dl Gallagher
• Idols of the forum: Why an intellectual middle class is to be prefered to a public intellectual „elite”
• Răspunsul lui Sorin Adam Matei și al Monei Momescu la articolul lui Andrei Pleșu ”Cine pe cine beștelește” din Dilema Veche
• Partea a doua a recenziei lui Paul Cernat din Obsevator cultural

Cumpărați Idolii forului prin Amazon.com

Cumpărați Idolii forului din România prin Librarie.net

Comentarii