Page 147 - Vinkler, Jonatan, Ana Beguš and Marcello Potocco. Eds. 2019. Ideology in the 20th Century: Studies of literary and social discourses and practices. Koper: University of Primorska Press
P. 147
Play, Chaos and Autonomy in the Poetry of Hungarians in Voivodina (Uj Symposion) 147
ground. Nevertheless, Symposionists were not merely passive subjects of
the ambivalence of Yugoslavness but also its active creators and partici-
pants. Suffice it to consider the number of the journal’s texts which used
the catchwords and motifs ‘Yugoslav’ and ‘Yugoslavia’ without any accent
of criticism. We must add that the creators of the journal were not mere-
ly motivated by constraints of power. To demonstrate this, it is enough to
cite contemporary writings and interviews of János Bányai, István Bos-
nyák, László Végel, or Ottó Tolnai. Symposionist Béla Csorba interprets
the self-contradictory nature of the first generation of Symposionists in
the following way:
The ideological fog from which some of them never found a way out
evolved from their completely legitimate aversion towards Kádár’s Hunga-
ry. From this motive, they identified freedom with Yugoslavness. You can-
not do this, however, without self-mutilation. Definitely not in a communal
sense. The emerging possibilities were utilised by government policy: the
journal of the first generation thus became at once supported and perse-
cuted by the self-contradictory and complicated Yugoslav system (2017, 48).
But Csorba narrows the ideological horizon of the first generation au-
thors: in his overgeneralizing tendency, he ignores the fact that in retro-
spect some of them treated the question of being Yugoslav with criticism
if not complete rejection (e.g. István Domonkos, Katalin Ladik, Végel,
Tolnai, Tibor Várady). Furthermore, in the cited interview Csorba did
not reflect critically on his own generation and ignored the fact that Új
Symposion is inseparable from Yugoslavness, so all editorial generations
were touched more or less by its ideology. In addition, any talk of ‘nation’
cannot be free of ideology. Nevertheless there could be no doubt that the
interpretation of the concept of ‘nation’ as well as that of ‘Yugoslavness’
was directed from above, in spite of the fact that there appeared some dis-
putes about the Yugoslav Hungarian (literary) identity in the columns
of Új Symposion (cf. Szerbhorváth 2005, 225–237). Csorba’s interview re-
veals the ambivalence of Yugoslavness: the contradiction of being at once
supported and persecuted defined the cultural strategy of Symposionists.
The texts published in the journal never questioned the basic idea of Yu-
goslavness. György Szerbhorváth claims the following about the Yugoslav-
ness of Symposionists: “No matter how they criticised Stalinist practices
that invaded the arts, they did not have the slightest doubt about the Yu-
goslav ones” (2005, 121). Just like Csorba, Szerbhorváth also ignores the
fact that the Yugoslav cultural policies cannot be understood without the
notion of ambivalence. Whereas a state-supported journal like Új Sym-
ground. Nevertheless, Symposionists were not merely passive subjects of
the ambivalence of Yugoslavness but also its active creators and partici-
pants. Suffice it to consider the number of the journal’s texts which used
the catchwords and motifs ‘Yugoslav’ and ‘Yugoslavia’ without any accent
of criticism. We must add that the creators of the journal were not mere-
ly motivated by constraints of power. To demonstrate this, it is enough to
cite contemporary writings and interviews of János Bányai, István Bos-
nyák, László Végel, or Ottó Tolnai. Symposionist Béla Csorba interprets
the self-contradictory nature of the first generation of Symposionists in
the following way:
The ideological fog from which some of them never found a way out
evolved from their completely legitimate aversion towards Kádár’s Hunga-
ry. From this motive, they identified freedom with Yugoslavness. You can-
not do this, however, without self-mutilation. Definitely not in a communal
sense. The emerging possibilities were utilised by government policy: the
journal of the first generation thus became at once supported and perse-
cuted by the self-contradictory and complicated Yugoslav system (2017, 48).
But Csorba narrows the ideological horizon of the first generation au-
thors: in his overgeneralizing tendency, he ignores the fact that in retro-
spect some of them treated the question of being Yugoslav with criticism
if not complete rejection (e.g. István Domonkos, Katalin Ladik, Végel,
Tolnai, Tibor Várady). Furthermore, in the cited interview Csorba did
not reflect critically on his own generation and ignored the fact that Új
Symposion is inseparable from Yugoslavness, so all editorial generations
were touched more or less by its ideology. In addition, any talk of ‘nation’
cannot be free of ideology. Nevertheless there could be no doubt that the
interpretation of the concept of ‘nation’ as well as that of ‘Yugoslavness’
was directed from above, in spite of the fact that there appeared some dis-
putes about the Yugoslav Hungarian (literary) identity in the columns
of Új Symposion (cf. Szerbhorváth 2005, 225–237). Csorba’s interview re-
veals the ambivalence of Yugoslavness: the contradiction of being at once
supported and persecuted defined the cultural strategy of Symposionists.
The texts published in the journal never questioned the basic idea of Yu-
goslavness. György Szerbhorváth claims the following about the Yugoslav-
ness of Symposionists: “No matter how they criticised Stalinist practices
that invaded the arts, they did not have the slightest doubt about the Yu-
goslav ones” (2005, 121). Just like Csorba, Szerbhorváth also ignores the
fact that the Yugoslav cultural policies cannot be understood without the
notion of ambivalence. Whereas a state-supported journal like Új Sym-
