Az egy politikai nemzet versus nemzetállam koncepciója Deák és Eötvös gondolkodásában
In Hungary we distiungish two different interpretations, used in two different periods, for the idea of nation: the feudal (estates of the realm) terminology and the modern (national) terminology. The former is based on Werboczy's idea of the nation, who divided the residents of Hungary into tw...
Elmentve itt :
| Szerző: | |
|---|---|
| Testületi szerző: | |
| Dokumentumtípus: | Könyv része |
| Megjelent: |
2016
|
| Sorozat: | A vallási kultúrakutatás könyvei
"A királyhűség jól bevált útján...": rendi és nemzeti kötődések szimbolikus változásai 1867 és 1918 között |
| Kulcsszavak: | Társadalmi tudat - Magyarország, Magyarország története - 1867-1918 |
| Tárgyszavak: | |
| Online Access: | http://acta.bibl.u-szeged.hu/67408 |
| Tartalmi kivonat: | In Hungary we distiungish two different interpretations, used in two different periods, for the idea of nation: the feudal (estates of the realm) terminology and the modern (national) terminology. The former is based on Werboczy's idea of the nation, who divided the residents of Hungary into two major groups according to customary law: into populus Werbocyanus and into plebs. In a society divided by customary law the nobility – a community of privileged landowner “residents” – made up the people of Werbocy, as opposed to the plebs who included the rest of the residents (all ethnics). The democratic element in this society was the possibility of gaining a title of nobility, that was there for everyone regardless if ethnicity.The situation changed when the nobility, fighting against the absolute monarchy, wished to transform the constitution of the Estates into a national institute, from being only a summary of the ruling elite's interest by customary law into an establishment of generally defending public interest. This idea was brought upon by the Enlightenment, and primarily manifested itself in bringing the case of the right to useHungarian in public life into limelight. The right to use Hungarian in public life was considered to be the most important factor of national development which was not compatible with the institutes of the estates of the realm any more.Nationalism, however, was meant to be a basis for conflicts in a country, where the majority of its citizens belonged to different ethnic groups. Pushing the idea of equal civil rights by the liberal nobility was not enough to avoid conflicts when you had to belong to the Hungarian nation in order to get your share of governing power which had an exclusive criteria: the knowledge of Hungarian.In the time of the estates of the realm being “Hungarian” or being merely a “resident” of Hungary made no difference because only the nobility had privileges and rights. The rise of the modern state, on the contrary, had to answer the following question: If Hungary is a multi-ethnic country but only the supreme “race” can be called a nation than what do we call the whole of its citizens altogether? In response, the concept of “one political nation” was born in 1868. The concept of the Natio Hungarica was extended to all the peoples in Hungary so that everybody was part of the Hungarian nation regardless of ethnicity and therefore the Hungarian people were not allowed to be called the Hungarian nation any more but all the ethnic groups were name the Hungarian nation. As a result, the new Hungarian Kingdom can not be purely described as a nation state of the Hungarians but as political nation state born out of the marriage between the once supreme “race” Hungarians and all the other nationalities. A state, which is named after (Hungarian Kingdom) the supreme nationality and has supremacy over all the others. |
|---|---|
| Terjedelem/Fizikai jellemzők: | 37-56 |
| ISBN: | 978-963-306-491-7 |
| ISSN: | 2064-4825 |