CEU eTD Collection T HE TRANSFORMATION OF CZECH ANDSLOVAK NATIONAL IDENTITY AND CREATION OF THE In partial fulfillment of therequirements the for degree ofMaster of Arts Supervisor: Professor András Kovács Nationalism Studies Program Central European University European Central ‘ Markéta Gerhartová NEW Budapest, Hungary Submitted to Submitted 2008 ’ By OTHER CEU eTD Collection Bibliography...... 52 Conclusions...... 47 3. Analysis...... 30 National 2. Identity...... 18 The Czechs, the Slovaks and1. National ...... 6 Identities Introduction...... 1 3.2. Analysis...... 34 3.1. Methodology...... 30 ...... 29 Conclusion Transmitting National 2.4...... 27 The Identity Main Functions of 2.3. National National Identity...... 26 Identity: the Content and2.2. Nationalthe ‘Other’...... 24 Identity: Emerged 2.1. or Created?...... 20 1.2. Czech and Slovak National ...... 8 Identities Analyzed 1.1. Historical ...... 6 Background Conclusion...... 45 ‘Czechoslovak’ and ‘Czecho-Slovak’3.2.3. Language...... 43 3.2.2. Differentiation...... 39 Similarities and 3.2.1. Commonalities...... 36 The Scope of the 3.1.6. Research...... 34 Materials from 3.1.5. Materials ...... 33 Slovakia from the Czech3.1.4. Materials Republic...... 33 from pre-1993 3.1.3. Selection Period...... 33 of 3.1.2. Materials...... 32 Critical Discourse 3.1.1...... 31 Analysis Contents i CEU eTD Collection carry out a comparative analysis of post-1993 development of Czech and Slovak national Slovak and Czech of development post-1993 of analysis a comparative out carry beforeclarificationit. wecanbegin talk Iwill to about fill intheexisting gap and academic clear,national Ibelieve that however isidentity ahighly issuecomplex a and requires detailed situation.post-1993 Atthe same time manyof studiesthe takenational identity as granted and of analysis aswell the fullyas absent, arealmost analyses Comparative separately. identities national Slovak or Czech on merely focused they if then and identities national of issue 2000) of 1993breakup.However,the (Švejnar, afew only werededicated solely works the to analysis Kamenec,1996; 2007; Rychlík,1998)to Pynsent, economicthe consequences of 1997; (Chmel, from historical perspective ranging from perspectives, many authors different materials. Slovakand educational Czech in identities of Czechoslovak, national creation discursive of analysis via comparative changethe I willdemonstrate setting. political new the suit to them between boundaries the and identities national the of redefinition In thisblurred. required theestablishmentindependent Iarguethat thesis of two states anew rather each were other towards identities national impliedof boundaries the that extentsome previous years(beforeWorld andafter Czechs WarII) whichand Slovaks sharedone state to In each the other. towards sametime opposition, andatthe in relation, identities national andSlovak Czech of breakup modification things entailed Among the academic. other even and medial social, economic, political, constitutional, – levels different many on transformation about brought breakup, followed the that states successor of two establishment The announcement. an with rather but aquestion with not then addressed, if and news, the participation of the public. The public was rather a quiet receiver of contemporary crucial in“velvetdivorce” The 1993breakup 1993. wasonce againapoliticalmade decision without Introduction The issue of Czech and Slovak national relations was already analyzed by numerous The issue by wasalready Czech of analyzed national and Slovak relations The Czechs and the Slovaks were united in acommon state for many decades until the 1 CEU eTD Collection natural process, but rather a process mainly pursued by the contemporary elites. Therefore I Therefore elites. contemporary bythe mainly pursued rather aprocess but process, natural a not is identity, national Slovak and Czech of forming that argue I facts these to According Slovakrelation to and theSlovak nationalCzech identity to after breakupthe in 1993. is, The question therefore howandtowhatextenthas in identity Czech changednational changes. thepolitical to relates Nazi etc. regime the defeated who brothers the Slovaks as independentof first state; the Slovak Czechs asthe‘unwantedparents’in samethe period, establishment the after andthe‘other’ collaborators as the Slovaks Czechoslovakia, of years nations of the same origin,identitiesSlovak Slovaks – astwo Czechsandthe national thee.g. periods given during Czechs as the assistantsnationalfor identity. believe Therefore I mutual thatthe definition of Czechsand the the of the nationalbasis a as served and history in found mostly were uprisingelements These together. (citizens) people during the first developmentwas in lastthe 100years presentatleast six times (Kamenec, 2007:123). historical Czech) (and of Slovak climax final the the casethen if itwas as one, previous the nota completion was of andSlovakrelation newperiod inCzech every Kamenec underlines, influences,mainly elitesthe struggling forand groups within power the entities. As Ivan 1998; Petruf, 2000; Tesa historical evolution or people’s will, as several academics argue (Barány, 2007; Gun academics 2007; argue(Barány, several people’s will, or as historical evolution ofnatural results not were formation and nation units of changes The political states. separate andtwice formed inafederation once/twice state, inaunitarian twiceunited Slovaks were about? talking are we identity national is the what over more And propose? and Slovaks issuenational identities of in lookathowarethe ‘others’general.Czechs important Iwill to covering as the well as literature literature of secondary inthelight available the identities Each political unit had to search for its legitimization and elements that wouldhold the that and elements search for its legitimization had to Each political unit In order to answer these questions we have to return to the beginning. The Czechsand return tothe beginning. toanswer wehave to questions these In order vice versa ? Or whether there are other, more important ‘others’ as some studies ‘others’ assome more important other, are there ? Or whether Ĝ , 1995),butrather anoutcome various of external and internal 2 þ ara, CEU eTD Collection different expectations: different created? other’ theone? other Czechs defined against identity Slovaks national and of transformation in discourse andanswer main the two questions: to to it others,with itstartedcomparing itself itand(insome cases) itselfas even defining opposed “ extent both parts of the picture – the Czech and national identity in in the given focusdiscourse situation. post-breakup the I theon and compare Slovak and I am interested in how and to what in andSlovakiaestablishment of CzechRepublic the 1993. published books history beforeschool andafter materials,educational particularly the focus on the materials that are directly or indirectly influenced by their decisions – 3. 2. 1. ” (Brodský,and 2004) According to my previous study mywe might literature, Accordinghave to of study four available secondary previous The main aim of my thesis is to unveil the process of creation and recreation of previous periods. Slovaks inthe towards Czechs of relation’ ‘parental ostensible the to Czech due in identity from is created the a sharperdifference national Slovak identity. national Slovak and Czech of case the in differs boundaries of delimitation of strength The The identities are gradually distinguished from each after other breakupthe in 1993. the Germans or any other internal or external ‘others’. – identity national Czech of case in the and Hungarians – the identity national Slovak in case of the ‘others’, more significant other, towards are constructed The identities … the Czech identity began to understand Slovakidentity one its significant … theCzech identitybegantounderstand as of vice versa . This thesis will clarify the post-breakup identity . This thesis willclarify post-breakup the 3 what How was/is the ‘new extent was the was extent CEU eTD Collection the third expectation can not be not can validated. the expectation third camefound was through comparisonthe with pre-1993discourse,the which is thereason why case. Slovak in the especially playsroleand animportant too notindicator only as an of Czechoslovakidentity, state Czechoslovak the ‘others’, other Among against. themselves define they ‘other’ only the against it nationalis identities though each created Slovak areevidently ‘other’, post-1993 not and Czech Basically, 3. chapter in analyzed be will as level, certain to up only however Sami inNews Discourse. people inFinnish newspaper discourse by andRuth Wodak in and PaulChilton e.g. Sari the Pietikäinen study indigenous on Sami Agenda in(Critical) Discourse Analysis:Theory,MethodologyandInterdisciplinarity intoadditional brings two approach picture the questions: construction nationalof identity, using the tools of AnalysisCritical Discourse (CDA). This Construction ofNationalIdentity identity, national Austrian of study in their Liebhart Karin and Reisigl Martin School Discourse Analysis, for instance was by adopted Ruth Wodak, Rudolph de Cillia, in traced books? Czech and SlovakCzechoslovak, school identity and national and Slovak Czech of construction discursive 4. According to myAccording to firstanalysis, the three expectations arefound in books, history the To test these expectations, I will look at the issue from the perspective of discursive of from perspective the issue atthe look will I expectations, test these To CDA was already used for a number of different studies. CDA, namely the Vienna removed. substantially previouschange,the regimewas alluvium of ideological the only The construction identitiesof Czech andboundaries Slovak national and their not did A completely different approach towards national identities national towards approach different A completely in 1999. The same approach was also used in a book Indigenous IdentityinPrint:the Representations of 4 Which instruments were used in the How can the process be process can the The Discursive The edited A New CEU eTD Collection contemporary issue. knowledge concerningthe academic contemporary provide of avivid picture givennationalthe identities, whichIhopewill tothe contribute These mainchapters books. school history andSlovak Czechoslovak, Czech documents: others. and Anderson Benedict Brubaker, Rogers Billig, Michael Hroch, Miroslav Smith, Anthony as of bynumerous nationalism, national such identity theorists towards as proposed approaches main the out point and thesis the for necessary components, general the of knowledge framework and provide be My therefore atheoretical to nature. itsaim will more problematic of warning without identities national concerning sense common readers’ the on counted them largely omitted by the many authors talking andwriting about Czechs and Slovaks. Most of later be 1),this developedseen from (and inchapter will issuewas introduction the also creation. and representation presentation, relations, their and identities Slovak and Czech on emphasis an with issue, most dedicated literature followed distinguished byacritical tothe analysis the secondary of insightinto the Czech and Slovak historical background since the end Worldof War I. That is primary of analysis original the and includesmethodology chapter third The As was identity. national to theissueof be devoted will chapter theoretical The second into chapters. three first provides The chapter The thesisis abrief divided structurally 5 CEU eTD Collection based on an idea of language, Czechoslovakbased anideaof identity portraying common and Czechoslovak on by was stated political Czechoslovakism above the czechoslovakism, suggested groupings. search forits ideology Czechoslovakia legitimacy hadto which foundwas inastate – minorities several and consisted of the Czechs and the Slovaks (in the contemporary language ‘the state nations’) Slovaks in then Czechoslovakia), Jews, Hungarians, Ruthenians, Poles, Roma and others. 3 Slavic nations. Czechoslovakia and that in this period alternative ideas existed as well, such as panslavism based onunity of 2 Czech political elites (Kusý,1997), Czech Slovakand exile movements (Žatkuliak,2005) etc. Hungarian influence (Chmel, 2004), thewill of a small Czech andSlovak community elite (Kružliak, 1997), the howeverother I, interpretationWar World after also situation exist, some authors geopolitical the to prioritize due powers the will ofexternal of influence Slovaks the to divestprioritize I themselvesacademics. from the 1 community] Allied of powers the political decision important, due to the post-war geopolitical situation on the European continent, seems to be TheunitexistenceCzechoslovak duetoseveral republic. came into Themost reasons. a the state, acommon joinedwithin were CzechsandSlovaks the 1918, years after between Czechs and Slovaks and their political units has changed several times. In the first national identities. Czech with Slovakand concerned less moreor literature available of areview by isfollowed That subject. the setting of territory wouldindispensable nations), Czech and which(others Slovak is say for the the (Milan Rastislav Štefánik,his adherents Masaryk with T.G. suchas representatives, exile Slovak Czech and some of of Edvard Beneš, Štefan Osuský and others) and Among Among them Germans (according to the public polls from 1921 minoritythe wasthan larger the numberof Itis important to highlight that the Czech andSlovak elites were not united concerning the issue of numerous by analyzed were republic Czechoslovak first of the establishment the influencing factors The 1.1. Historical Background Historical 1.1. 1. Since thedissolution of Austro-Hungarianthe inEmpire mutual 1918, the relationship Slovak and Czech the on events historical the into insight an with begins thesis The The Czechs, the Slovaks andNational Identities surrounded around Slovakthe magazine 3 . As the state formation was more or less imposed, the idea of 1 which was in accordance with the political orientation political the with accordance in was which 6 Hlas [TheVoice] 2 . Then Czechoslovakia hlasisti [the Voice [the CEU eTD Collection Slovak part (despite the fact that the boundaries between these two entities were not exactly specified). exactly not were entities two these between boundaries the that fact the (despite part Slovak Slovaksof Czechs and (Skallnik-Leff, The Czechs 1997:46). mainly Czechthe inSlovaks part,residing the on 6 during the Therefore post-communist times there was the centralized. call was forless or anauthentic more federation. stayed (Skalnik-Leff, state the 1997) federation, false a more was federation the Though Republic. Republic that was constituted by two republics, the CzechSocialistic Republic and the Slovak Socialistic 5 2000-23-24). (Bystrický,2007:53-59), others see the threat as not reasonable propose and there was that analternative ( Slovak republic) didn’t have an alternative and had to establishSlovak state that Hitler threatened him favour the theory that Tiso (the leaderof theSlovak Peoples Party laterand president of firstthe independent 4 communist regime pursued should thestate centralism.have Originally, beenformed onthe identity the talk, reappeared engaging inthe instead of discredited.Unfortunately, obviously Republic Bohemia Moravia. and was a Nazi satellite republic Slovak in1944,the Uprising Slovak National until and assistanceHitler the the of was with unilaterally Slovakdeclared state independent In 1939 the became Czecho-Slovakia. Carpathian statuswithinRuthenia) gainedautonomous andCzechoslovakia republic the within the republicmoremore and powerful, newdemands were forrecognition of equality the of nation Slovak via autonomy.norlanguage spiritual basis 1997).Firstly demands(Kružliak, isolated only were becoming historical, neither having On construct artificial an was theczechoslovakism that claimed Some eve of World Peoples[Slovak Party] War II, Slovakia around especially those Slovak bynumerous politicians, rejected (together with ideology. leading the state then the supported of Thecentralized nature roots. cultural similar their and 1948:20-21) Moravia (Mackenzie, commonalities, such as their common Slavic origin, the coexistence in the 9 in the coexistence the origin, Slavic common their as such commonalities, Czechs and Slovaks as two branches of a single nation, referring to their closeness and The national composition of Czechoslovakia has changed significantly. Newly, the state was composed of 90% Czechoslovakia changed its name and political form in 1969, becoming a federation– Czechoslovak Socialistic The circumstances in which the Slovak republic was established were largely discussed by many authors, one authors, many by discussed largely were established was republic Slovak the which in circumstances The After World War II, the Czechs and the Slovaks were reunified in theCzechoslovak reunified were Slovaks andthe Czechs the WorldWar II, After continually ideology was theleading Czechoslovakia, of after the establishment Soon 5 . The question of identity once again came to be discussed 4 . The Czech part of the former republic became a Protectorate of becameaProtectorate former republic the partof . TheCzech who demanded more responsibilities for the Slovak part of the state. 7 Slovenská strana l’udová 6 . Czechoslovakism was . Czechoslovakism th century Great century ý apka, CEU eTD Collection 8 the blurredthe idea how shall the republic be formed (Krej (Pithart, 1999:11), lackof (Pithart,time 1999: 14,Zajac:1999:65-66), the influence of media (Zajac, 1999:64), (Gun naturalthe development heading forindependent Slovakdemands, state(Chmel, 2004:13-15), Czech of activities of exileSlovaks intransigence the state, centralist previous ofthe experience different the Slovakia, developed decisionof (T Slovakia Krej negotiations betweenMe by numerous authors, from many perspectivesdifferent such historicalas (Chmel, 1997, followers (Tesa sidesonboth1999: (Pithart,Gál,1999:25-27; 12; Zemko, activities 1999:68),of the Havel president his and incomprehensionCzech of Slovak requirements (Gun favourin breakupthe as presented by academics: the loss of meaning of Czechoslovakia (Svoboda,1999:42), the aim is not to propose another theory of the breakup, Ithink it is neccessary to list atleast some of the arguments 7 (31 divide state the republics to took place without a referendum which would reveal the unwillingness of people from both Slovakia since 2004,both states became members of EUinthe 2004). institutions several –TheCzech international (NATO isRepublic amember since 1999, becomehave members of they Since their establishment, continent. European the appeared on found was thebreakup For several on theonlysolution and agreed of republic reasons the andfuture demandsfor a‘fair’ Czechs solution the in andfederation. Slovaks an authentic state. The following period of transition was different. slightly federation in of the parts development At same the time, federation. was filled with expectations, attemptsand from opposed Slovakthe elites for their space own ofinfluence within the positive in its formal federalization despite wasin1969, centre Prague), (the was viewscentralized strongly of the basis of equal with equal, promoting a real federalization, but it never became so. The state Translations of all the Czech and Slovak documents are made by the author. by the made are documents Slovak and Czech the ofall Translations The list of reasons would be almost indefinite and in the case of each author different and intervoven. Although “The worst“The thingis to learn to livewith your own identities. Andwith theneighboring ones” þ 1.2. Czech and Slovak National Identities Analyzed Identities Czech andSlovakNational 1.2. þ í, 2005: 324-328),í, natural development of bothnations (Petruf, 2000:4; Zajac, 1999:66; Zemko,1999:68), ara, 1998: 43), lack of consciousness about potentional conflict nature of Czech and Slovak relations Slovak and ofCzech nature conflict potentional about of consciousness lack 43), 1998: ara, The issue of Czech and Slovak relations and their national identities has been analyzed been has identities national their and relations Slovak and Czech of issue The After the fall of the communist regime in 1989 Czechoslovakia became ademocratic became Czechoslovakia in 1989 regime communist the of fall the After Ĝ , 1995:45;Svoboda,Ku 1999: 38; Ĝ þ eštík,1999: 187), will the ofCzechpart the ofrepublic the to ofunder- get the rid iar andiar Klaus (the leaders of contemporary winning political parties) (Gál, 1999:25-27; st of December 1992). However, inHowever, new of 1992). 1993 two states December þ ara, 1998: 43), lackofthe willpolitical andunderstanding þ þ 8 í, 2005:326) etc. era, 1999:61),activities the andwaysof political (Thomas Lewis cit.inZajac,2004: 80) 7 . It . 8 CEU eTD Collection 201). From201). his pointof view, nation state are and culturally Hisconstructed. (Ibid: practice influenced by political negotiation constant of a process of through culture Czech ishistorical within andvarious national identity experience created symbols. sphere the polls and main interviews. His aimis discover to hidden the meaning behind theCzech from media,reconstructed public opinion Czechidentity is Czechoslovakia2001:6). (Holý from then World end the War and theexpulsion of Czechs since of German population the II on the post-revolution situation. Stating that the Slovaks were the mostimportant ‘others’ to meanings of components of Czech identity in historical aspecial processwith the emphasis CzechNation Czech andtheGreat Little Holý, Ladislav anthropologist an by written was identity national Czech about study issuethe of Czech and identities. Slovak national Among them, mostthe possibly famous of national identities. Czech Slovakand issue the towards approaches and works significant themost of presentsome I will following on both andsides against breakup)found(pro the what were looking they In for. the surprising seekers the isitin Finally, that historical of new not periods. art state previous the breakup morein (slightly soughtexplanationsSlovakia) butalso de-and legitimization of the among prevailed. works historicallythe Both the oriented adherentsthe andopponents of the revolution especiallytimes, around time the of breakup.the is It alsosurprisingnot that 1999) as iswell aslaics.surprising It not number thatthe grown in of works post- the academics, politicians andjournalists (Gál, 1999;Havel, 2000,2006;Kuras, 1999; Pithart, Miháliková,nationalism 2005), etc. Itwas addressed(Brodský, 2004) by numerous philosophic (Pato Pynsent, 1996; Rychlík, 1998; Sayer, 1998; Skalnik-Leff, 1997;T Pynsent,1996; Rychlík,1998; Sayer, 1998; 2004; Hroch, 2000;Kamenec, 2000; 1997; 2007;Kandert, Míšková,Lipták, Rak, 2000; Despite the enormous amount of literature, only few works were dedicated solely to þ ka, 1992),economical anthropological (Holý, 2000), (Švejnar, 2001; in 2001. Holý in Holý analyses 2001. critically the cultural 9 Ĝ eštík,etc.), 1999 The CEU eTD Collection analysis. Opposed analysis.his Opposed to article,Iwill argue that national identity is notaninevitable partof clarify not of ashehis steps his does the basiswork, of theoretical is problem unstable the Another hisideas.confirm contain to sources not enough does asthearticle substantiate, to defining itself as opposed to it” (Brodský, 2004). However, his conclusions are rather difficult one of its significant“… thebreakup after understand identity that Slovak stating Czechidentity began to the as others, transformation identity Slovak Czechand the to attention Hepays events. historical certain it startedanalyzing samples of newspaper speeches political interconnects articles itand and with comparing revolution in 1989 until Czech the Republic entered itself EU. Heusesdiscoursethe analysis, with it Western (Brodský,Ji Europe 2004). and (in some to ascloser themselves perceiving while Europeans, Eastern the as perceive Slovaks to started cases) even argument isargument also usedbyJi breakup period, main emphasizingthe in A differences historical development. similar by geographical differences self-evaluation(Ibid). Adifferent is onlylimited tothe pre- (Pynsent, 1996). These aredelimitations caused mainly by historical and,interestingly, also Slavicism’, andCzech decadents the problem mutual of delimitation Czechs andof Slovaks of ‘myth the on based is identity Czech of conception the that believes He identity. national Czech of loadedness political and he complexity the hisstudy emphasizes Throughout convinced thathis contribution to issuethe ofidentity buildingis more than evident. analyze Czech identity (Ibid:not” whetherinhabit not members Although territory particular I will its 188). or a from a cultural point languageNation inevitable “…common cultureandnation an as and resultof a remains of view, but rather development. natural of based onaprocess is then nation Czech the of conceptualization from a political one, I am Contrary to Holý, R. B. Pynsent sees identity as a rather politically charged matter. Ĝ í Brodský. Heargues the situation, since that post-breakup Czechs Ĝ í Brodský analyses the identity Czechnational from the 10 CEU eTD Collection their works can be more or less put into the theoretical frames of nationalism conceptions: nationalism of frames theoretical the into put less or more be can works their nationalism, of theorists not are authors the Although differentiated. internally further are that can these Accordingbeinto main theavailableliterature differences to three divided groups understandingissue, of which beappliedthe authors’ situation. post-breakup alsotothe can the among differences and similarities certain trace can reader acareful However, studies. in wasonly a fewsociological or preserved identities disappeared andtheirrelation either and national in Slovak Czech interest wasdivided,the Czechoslovakia seems once It that is.content At samethe mainly time these works focus on pre-1989andthe pre-1993situation. its andwhat means identity what national about knowledge acquired elsewhere from readers’ the to appealing much rather concern, without addressed minor topic serves asarather to createandsurvivetheexternal powers. notaddress emphasizesinnerissuebut efforts of does the the the powers of otherness/identity makes1992:11) which inmoments society the weak of Being Pato crisis. aphilosopher, belowbecauselanguage” theupperclasses remain not … (Pato usually did within the Pato to according then, Czechs the of problem main The of Europe. thecentre being as its importance and development European of light the in seen is nation Czech The nation. Czech the on reflection jsou Cesi?[WhataretheCzechs?] pointhow out is thisissue particular portrayed in literature. educational human mindmoreover Iwillbring and picture into the also Slovak the identity national and 1. In other academic works, mainly historically oriented, the issue of national identity national issueof the historically oriented, mainly works, academic In other A completely view pointdifferent ispresented bya of Jan philosopher Pato identity as a rather unchanging basis of the nation. This approach in the terminology of Works that perceive Czech andSlovak nations as something natural and national þ ka, is the lack of elites: “… modern Czech-ness is a society from built isasociety “…Czech-ness modern iska,elites: lackof the from 1992. It isfrom 1992. It probably Pato 11 þ ka’s most complete þ ka in þ þ ka, Co ka CEU eTD Collection 9 based on an imaginative linkdifficulties. Primarily linkbetween the Great Moravia and is nation Slovak doubtful and established on the basis of territory without any archeological tradition in comparison to Czech Protestant tradition Czech Protestant to incomparison tradition language, historical background and (Kružliakreligiosity highlights Slovakthe Christian of composed tune soul and psychological of which isdifferent apart nature, distinctive Slovak surprisingly natural Not climax of of they theestablishment in1993asa Slovakia understand andits representatives. state Slovak first the glorify to tend they position in extreme nation, oldestthe nation” Slavic (Chmel, These authorsemphasize 2004:11). only aboutthe positives Moravia). Rudolf Chmel with hisgoes argumentation further,even stating that “Slovaks are Great the from (basically nation Slovak the of duration long the emphasize (2007), Bystrický psychological Kružliak, mentality soul and(Kružliak, 1997:485-490). and alsoValerián live organism, with distinct historical and cultural identity, havingits owninterests, goals, Which however can not be thematized so simply and would indeed need more clarification. more need indeed would and so simply be thematized not can however Which 3. 2. To the first group belong firstTo the group such Imrich Kružliak, understand authors as nation who a as favoringits constructionist version (Chapter 2). especially modernists, those realm the of belong would to These works created. rather something as identities national and nations Slovak and Czech perceive that Works close to ethno-symbolism (Chapter 2). influences. As will be seen on the examples of works, somesomething same inevitable atthe and by time shaped internal the and external of these authors are very as identities national their and nations Slovak and Czech understand that Works 2). chapter nationalism primordialist also equalperennialist and would see approach (Please 12 9 .). This approach encounters several encounters approach This .). CEU eTD Collection Slovaks was invented only in the 14 territory had very10 unlikely something in common with the present Slovaks or Moravians and even the name 9 the nation Slovak the date These such group of possibly Miná works. authors, as Vladimír largest the itcorrectly. understand isthere nothingnegative aboutthe national identity anyway; itis just thatpeople donot understandimplies people the nation, theiridentity not that This was deprived. theirdo as is because itnegative if is something there that stating slip while another commits however Chmel outsome as negatives suitable. identity,Rudolf national a partof points Only Slovak was Czechoslovakia Czechs for the solution, possible is best the state Slovak independent identity is expressedfor onlyinnegatives andwhilestating the Slovak that the nation national Czech the colors, positive in isexpressed identity national Slovak while – Bystrický within the nation. is Further, there a logical prevailing slip, inthe ofKružliakworks and inner problem differentiation another to the – they omit isWhich connected ‘bad’ Slovaks. of by made group history, duringWorld expulsion WarII,wasonly asmall the Jews of the modern of Slovak interpretation only darker period of the history, nation’s the as from their Ć development(Petruf, 2000:3).An interesting conceptcan be foundin work the of Lubomír external and internal and experiences tradition, its change, to reactions different development, do not claim that differentlanguage in 19 the needs are products of natural order, but of a different historical evidence Czech culture and politics –which was usually happening with a passivity hugeof numbers of due to activities of“… theof attributes and identity political territorial haveand we,Slovaks, peculiarity gained small group of our nation, that somehow and sometimes rested on the There are no archaeological proves for this theory, not even mentioning that the Slavic tribes inhabiting that inhabiting tribes Slavic the that mentioning even not theory, this for proves archaeological no are There urovi þ A different approach towards Slovak national identity can be found in the second, in the found be can identity national Slovak towards approach A different , in whose understanding the Slovak nation has distinctive national identity however identity national distinctive has nation Slovak the understanding in whose , 10 . Another deficiency is the non-problematic, optimistic and narrative presentation narrative and optimistic non-problematic, the is deficiency Another . th century. Although they emphasize natural needs of national identity, they identity, national of needs natural emphasize they Although century. th century, but rather connect it with the establishment of Slovak of establishment the with it connect rather but century, th century. 13 þ (1997), do not do (1997), CEU eTD Collection construction in the course of of 19 inthe thecourse construction identity national the of foundation driven elite the emphasizes He Sayer. Derek by offered “innovative” interpretation of breaking historical events historical breaking of interpretation “innovative” official documents, ceremonies,45). heads” allin(T after exist, becauseit our resides not it nation; otherwise the does street names, careof isto take It necessary work. most intellectual of all but meansmodernization), (that guide‘circumstances’ changing still time same the at and similar of result the is it eternal, not is books etc., rather than repeated and Similarly, Dušan T Dušan Similarly, elites. of contemporary construct operational asarather appears than identity National like. they way inthe them interpreting and figures and events choosing selectively history, identity. Hehighlights politicalthat arelookingfor parties power craving and anyone towards national Slovak about primarily them, about points important few a makes such, as identities whonationaldespite created.rather not Among talking Kamenec about (2007), them Ivan they are chosen. criteria towhich andaccording changing those are which and identity national of parts the are What Czechness. and Slovakness is what articulate to ability –thelackof works of these deficiency major leastone is There at influencing toevents assuch. the nation somethinglayersadded, due somethinggiven and – of elites. the endeavor with behind and which thatmakes culture ismodified politics group, a nation latera distinctive 11 our nation ( our evenagainsttheir will” or Breaking historical events as presented by the common sense. common by the presented as events historical Breaking Another historical reconstruction of Czech national identity, based mostly on novels, on mostly based identity, national Czech of reconstruction historical Another In the third group of works are those which perceive national identities assomething national of which arethose perceive In works third group the These usually works perceive Slovak andCzech national identity composed of as two Ĝ eštík, in connection with Czech national identity, highlights that“[n]ation highlights identity, Czechnational with in eštík,connection Ć th urovi and 20 and 14 þ , 2007: 40). Inthereis words, 40). other something , 2007: th century, stressing the influence of influence of the century,the stressing 11 , such as wars and revolutions, is revolutions, and such aswars , Ĝ eštík, 1999: CEU eTD Collection the Germans the inner were isand ‘others’ Jews. the Aapproach taken alsoby similar Carol in 19 argues that the neighbors – religion that brings Slovaks closer to Poles than Czechs. other to also nations the link identities national of features certain that and history throughout changing were ‘others’ the that remind authors Few on. assumption their base they period assumptions however authors, of historical they differin their of obviously choice the the simplehistorical are basedon works Most of these Czechs1997). Holý, 2004; (Brodský, Czechs Slovaksclosestto (Chmel,‘others’2004; Svoboda,1999)or asthemainimportant to important‘other’ most to Other Slovaksthe workssee (Kusý, Slovaksthe 1997). as the 2000;Míšková, forRak,2000)andhistorical Czechs asthe ‘other’ the (Kandert, Hungarians national identity their towardswhich innational the words given identities, ‘other’ the definition other of is defined or created. interritory last 100years1.1.). (see Chapter Many on Czechoccurred the and Slovak numerousthe changes ofpolitical andregimesthat units worksremember we if especially identities, national Slovak highlight and Czech to comes it when meaningful the many differentGermans ways. This provides fruitful soil for my own analysis and thisas approach seemswhothe hold the mainpower in the state. human minds; onthe contrary, and they Andare produced by constantly reproduced elites, those as seen from the work of Sayer, they are produced in nationalism” (Sayer, 1998:170). in ofCzech hadfrequently incorporated the stating been “…Slovaks within discourse that of providing in andSlovak relations pre1960´s comparison Czech the interesting the decades contemporary environment. study the inthe political Unfortunately,ends 1960´s, though Sayer brings another dimension into the picture – the inner and outer ‘others’. dimension –theinnerSayerbrings into picture the andouter another He Further, works can be differentiated according to the delimitation of boundaries of the of independently exist not do identities Slovak and Czech authors, these to According th and 20 th century the outer ‘others’ to the Czech national identity were identity national Czech the to ‘others’ outer the century 15 CEU eTD Collection present, post-1993 breakupsituation? present, post-1993 in the identities national Slovak and Czech between relation is the What today? correspond it farbuthow tothe might does historical correspond reality, sketchedpicture by authors the The ‘other’. of question is the there Finally identity’. ‘national term the by mean they what explainnot usually authors do works, group of third the Even inthecaseof taken as granted. them nationalhighly identity iscontributive, edgeonly interestat the of their andusually almost fully absent. Despite developmentthe of anddevelopment change of mutual their relationship breakup sincethe are there is an enormoustrace would that missing. Studies israther them towards approach comparative identities, a number of historical studies and many of (Míšková, Rak,2000). These findings will be partly and inrevealed reflected my analysis. muchwere Czechoslovaks they as as wereCzechs TheCzechs same. asthe “Czechoslovak” becomedid not nationmainly apolitical because Czechsperceived “Czech” and Czechoslovakia factthat the to refers also Rychlík Similarly surviving. was czechoslovakism identity,neverinterwoven national the state butwas purely oldwith whichthe within was identity that national of Czech formulation sees is problematic the WhatHroch identity. and national state between crucial the difference out viewpointing amuch offers wider he rather another nation; in to opposition created identity as national notemphasize the does both majority minority and population” (Skalnik-Leff, 1997:143-144). of identities national evolving newly the safeguard will that niche international an for search questions in the two successor republics revolve …around the treatment of minorities and the national central “[t]he that minorities, claiming state –the inner‘others’ of questions the is problem connectedto identities breakup afternational the thatthe situation. Sheargues of in Skalnik-Leff To conclude, most of the presented studies focus only on Czech or Slovaknational A viewishistorian, by different his offered Miroslav a from Hroch. In article he 2000, The Czech and Slovak Republics The CzechandSlovak 16 from from 1997, focusing mainly 1989 on post the CEU eTD Collection nationalism. rememberedalive of theorists constructed, asanalyzedbynumerous kept transmitted, and is it how content, its is what be approached, can it how is, identity national what clarify to necessary is it that believe I issues. Slovak and Czech concerning works in the omitted identity iswas largely bring identity’. National into chapter picture the ‘national going to To fill in one of the lacking respects of most of the stated work, the next the work, stated the of most of respects lacking the of in one fill To 17 CEU eTD Collection contributions, Ilimitmyself to one course of study. Due to the orientation of the thesis, Ihave ethnology (Sayer,(Smékal, social-psychology 1998; 2002), (Castano, history Bar-Tal, 1998), 2000), (Hroch, 1998) etc. Because –his co-nationals. group him acertain with connects primarily it is almost impossible to cover all the academic of the information the of given nationality. However, the answer usually does not mean something only for the receiver tothe connected positive characteristics negative and of mental stereotypes, chain reaction nationality;it question acertain contains value. a about activates added Theanswer usually a mereyouyourlivingtravelingnot is or outside areworking, home question country. The you is from?’ usually secondthe question is ‘whatafter your name?’ which people askwhile became one of the most bearers they never (Miller,2002), forgotten (Billig, 2005).In are world currentthe crucial they even identities bytheir perceived always not consciously are they fact that the Despite condemned. and a person (shall) posses.misused, remindedliked andcurtailed, worshiped and and rejected, commemorated disliked, The question, ‘whereidentities is still on the agenda. National identities are daily arediscussed andneglected, used and issuenational of the indicate that continent European the on only not other events several Flemish-Walloon of independence in the Kosovodiscussions and recentthe Belgium, of growingin immigrants the re-appearance integration, the number European of countries, the European on-going The interest. growing permanently raises that phenomenon complex concerning stereotyping please see Pickering (2001), Brown (1995) etc. ascriptionof certainvalues, types of behaviour, customs and habits to certain nationalities. For more informaion 12 “I felt Slovak…” “I felt I am not saying that the mental chain of reaction comprehends reality, I only refer to the stereotypical 2. National identity was analyzed from various points of view, such as psychology National identity and its transformation is the central theme of my thesis. It is a is It thesis. my of theme central the is transformation its and identity National National Identity National T. G. Masaryk, the first Czechoslovak president 12 , but also, and foremost, for the bearer of the given national identity, as it as identity, national given the of bearer the for foremost, and also, but , 18 ý apek, 1929:30) CEU eTD Collection nations came into existence at the dusk of 18 duskof the the existence at into came nations identity is only one of them. aswell. identities National religious and ethnic, class aregender, there reminds (1991, 1999) identities aremultiple then 2000;Wodak (Hroch, etal. as 1999:16-17), also Anthony Smith 1998; Woolman, havingaspecificandunique content.Collective Spencer, 2005)while ‘them’ 2005;Gilroy,(Eriksen, Kostelecký,Hroch, 2000;Nedomová, 2005; Salazar, 1996; Giesen, 2003:363),in it words other differentiates a community ‘us’ from of a community of identity is socially andconstructed is based on social construction of borders (Eisenstadt, many that fields.them of from connected use explanations other in ofvarious nationalism, focus bearingdecided mind of theorists works the primarily to on building and nationalism as such. nation- towards totheir approach manner which in corresponds acertain they are transmitted, how and are functions main their what are, content and basis their what created, emerge/are 1.2.), taking national identity as granted and rather a stable basis of the nation. perceiving authors other nationalidentity stable andunchangingas something (See Chapter Czech and Slovak national identity by as presented Kružliak (1997)and Bystrický and(2007), Woolman, Wodak etal.,1999:11). These 2005a; opposethe general arguments perception of national identitiesfluid are andchangeable 2003;Smith,(Brubaker, 1991,1999;Spencer, (Mist periods andhistorical countries identities in different but aredifferent there that identities, national worlds’ the all for same the be would that identity’ national ‘a of element single seen from examples above.the meaningis They andmultilayered, thatthere are complex no Ĝ ík, 1998;Spencer, Woolman, 209).Furthermore, agree, asmost 2005b: authors the of Further, national identities are quite new identities, taking into account that the modern that account the into taking identities, new arequite identities national Further, Collective identity. a collective is identity national that agree authors many Primarily, What the scholars of nationalism mostly do not agree on is how national identities national how is on agree not do mostly nationalism of scholars the What 19 th century; however they are truly powerful as powerful truly are they however century; CEU eTD Collection exists a certain, limited number of possible “…counter-myths of origin and alternative and origin of “…counter-myths possible of number limited certain, a exists national identity as andideals However,mean (Smith, 1999:57). thisdoesnot …” thatSmith somethingunderstands static and meaning bedrock shared of emerge as without identity can ethnic “nopersisting ethnic roots given, on the contrary, its cultural iselements” It is(Smith, purely invented 2001:18). not but its outof growing he states that there heritagenations of and individuals the identification of with pattern and andthat with heritage always pattern of values, identity reproductionAccording“the him,isand national to of the reinterpretation continuous symbols,precondition that nations are rooted in ethnic myths, symbols, traditions and national histories. memories,concerning national building identity nation and and based(1991, 1999, 2001)that are on the books many of author mythsSmith, D. Anthony is ethno-symbolist famous most The one. first and traditions that composeidentity is not understood as something chosen, but rather somethinginherited. national therefore and nation given the of ethno-history the previous the of traditions and symbols distinctive ethno-symbolistsfeatures. For nation is myths,(Smith, 1991,1999,2001) basedupon different emphasizes each though author of state in favor newart, the of lessmore created or modernity and perceive therefore national identities assomething else,usually something of are part nations andnationalism that claiming these contradict 1992; Gellner,2003) theoriesnationalinherent order.Modernistthe part of identity and(Hobsbawm, order an as natural of a part see as 1973)nations (Geertz, Primordialists unchanging. rather as something perennialists (Renan,2003)understand nation as something immemorial and identity national in 19 especially the influential thatwere theories and primordialist influentialmodernists most and intoperennialist arethe ethno-symbolist the theories contrast 2.1. Although ethno-symbolism is the answer to modernist theories, I will present it as the as it present will I theories, modernist to answer the is ethno-symbolism Although Among the different approaches towards nations and national identities, the currently the identities, national and nations towards approaches different the Among National Identity: Emerged orCreated? Identity:Emerged National 20 th century. Briefly, CEU eTD Collection process that begun before the establishment of modern nations; something that was shaped modernbegun that establishment of nations; before something by process the that historical via created something identity national as whounderstands political theorist, and historian Hroch, Miroslav as such through, went nation-to-be the processes historical the from understand and identity national existentthat somethingauthors resulting objectively as is are aswillbeAmongthere modernists appraisal, seen.approach their though differentiated Slovak mutual relations. and Czech of redefinition another about brought regime, of change the with accompanied another change II War World After views. religious such different as the features, two these by to differentiate attempt experienced driven stressing different successful elite an roots – Slavic origin,similar culture, similar language etc. The same territory a few years later thecommon stressing nation, by one asabranch of ideaof and Slovak Czech supported the World of War post- the was obviously wassubsequently product Isituation a political which considerably importantsupport mycritique role.first with evidence, To the Czechoslovakia playeda Slovaks in and case of Czechs specific the identity national shaping of and influencesituation. ofelitespolitical withinstrongly activities and the Presentrole the present the on emphasis missing isthe approach weaknessof this Another Brubaker (2003). always been Ethno-symbolisma distinct group,obviouslya purely political,it driven elite isproject, invented from never nothing (Held, 2002:319). whichbuildsis it cases insome when even identity national that and andduties upon rights traditions, particular is notan idea necessarily of collective with territory a community particular on andcultural isahistorical anation become will memory the of case,a generation” Similarly, (Smith, 2001:129). Held that group David (2002)states communitythe that that as haspresented and byeach refashioned being reinterpreted always identity was and… National official – predominant by temporarily become might them of some Rogers if even culture, national of memories Modernists, on the contrary stress the role of elites, at least in certain parts of national of parts in certain least at elites, of the role stress contrary the on Modernists, 21 CEU eTD Collection thought-provoking theory in is Brubaker, basic theory the shaped addresses thought-provoking byRogers who concepts butrather something in chosen given historicalthe period. constructionist Another and ‘conventions’ national fact referstothe that identity nothingis naturally, gradually emerging, The word 1999:4). etal, conventions…”(Wodak behavior andsimilar of attitudes national identity, is that in her understandinga „…complex emotional of and dispositions further found in works the of Wodak, whoRuth emphasizes thesocially nature acquired of A thissymbols’ ‘warof (Grew,2003:210). processthe constructionistcan be approach calls Grew symbols. its and identities national of blocks building suitable most the choosing that are chosen among others. It was the Interdisciplinarystate, Dialogue I would say mostly the state elites,historian,in Raymond Grew, fromhis work 2003, who were A systematically constructed. something identity national as theories. Theseunderstand from groups, closerother tosome andmore distant to others. wasalwaysthat a group nation-to-be, objectively distinct idea existssomething asa there that is it on an based Moreover, asCzecho-Slovakia. case of was the events other or periods other fails explainto why a nation refers only someto historical periods and some events and not to it is, approach this contributing However immigrant. the nowadays and French the past the entity one,dangerous in against dangerous – is the identity national constructed always that British on perspective interesting an up bring They identity. national the shaping over past nations of influence (2002)emphasize the and Similarly,Woolman (Hroch, 2000). Spencer the German) and othersnational stereotypes were born (such asin caseof national identity the Czech in opposition to were forgotten several process, historical the during hisinterpretation, According to existence. centennial (such asits in through in went nation the losses the and victories battles, main the of same experience the case of the fear from USSR) The explanatory modernfilledin be constructionist The thecan theories previous by gap explanatory argues that national identities are shaped by those historical by events historical national areshaped identities those arguesthat 22 Concepts of National Concepts of Identity –and CEU eTD Collection dialects and 7 sub-dialects,main 7 and areat of most differs.words In there CzechRepublic the all pronunciation the some grammar, different slightly have generally languages based Slovak and Czech language. the on two slightly different bases units. natural shall that possess groups nonatural are there because simply – the BohemianSlovakia as two independentand countries are the natural and best solution for the thetwo entities. As itview,willargue, asmany notbepossible to do, authors Czech the that and Republic common natural sense of Czech andof of distinctiveness his Applying nations. Slovak point is any more approach even without natural Brubaker’s useful shakes as itconnection. the identity isholdssomething for thensomethingstate, together useful thepeople the that say, theleading elites or elites craving for power, as elites are notnecessarily united. National better to or, elites internal external and madeby the butby not choice The was people 1.1). (Seechapter Czechoslovak Slovak andCzech, or or Czechoslovak, common either activated: be to identities national slightly different required that territories on Slovak Czech and the have years taken several place 100 projects In political identities. last the and national Slovak 380). (Ibid: spheres economic cultural or political, bycertain generated invented, is also nation that (Ibid: 379).Nationalidentity isisthen also something that toserve invented the needs the of happen.necessarily is National identity institutionalizedthen an form and practical category didnot something that 376), 2003: fluid(Brubaker, accidental and somethingcreated, Europe, in theNew differentmanners. In his book, butgroups, rather as options orpossibilities and thereforenational identity is establishedin asobjectively existing andunderstand ethnic national groups manner. not a differentHedoes To provide evidence Iwould like tobriefly look atone of mainthe of features nation – issue of Czech tothe it when comes is especially useful, approach constructionist The he proposes hea moreas groupness constructionist treating proposes approach, Nationalism Reframed. Nationhoodandthenationalquestion 23 CEU eTD Collection sources. The constructionist approach most seems tobetherefore approach promising. The the sources. constructionist infinite rather have to seems creations identity national of project the therefore and myths of with isof definition andthehistory various difference and the symbols, traditions loaded as much Differencea question but isnot 2008). natural army”order (Brubaker, a question of visitCEU in at languageis Budapest:“thebetween difference and thatlanguage dialect has an features connected to the modern establishment of nation-states and civic values. Among values. and civic nation-states of modern the establishment to connected features lies ethnic that as group basis the him, a nation Contrary of highlightgroup. to modernists ethno-history, suchascertain customstraditions, andvalue systems thatareunique for every culture symbols, national identity is cultural composed features inheritedof from nation’s the is indeed inappropriate. academically sense uponcommon thatcounts identities national theirnations and Czech Slovak and about ‘other’the against which national the identity is shaped. The foundapproach inmany works borders, of the importance and the content identities’ national of the theiraffect understanding of authors frameworks and Differentthe theoretical approaches variousthings authors. for western, the Ukrainian, while are very to thatclose local sub-dialects certain especially one, eastern havedifficulties understanding the to dialect western tend using some wordsused.People and mainly in which differpronunciation again group, eastern the thecentral and western, the regions tendtohaveit. understanding problems In Slovakia there are3big groups of dialects, Slovak language than Czech ( than Slovak language Eastern in Especially Moravia, differ. words several also but in pronunciation different are which Moravian the border region with Slovakia certain sub-dialects tend to be closer to 2.2. For ethno-symbolists, such as Anthony Smith, who understand the nation as rooted in rooted as nation the understand who Smith, Anthony as such ethno-symbolists, For From the above stated analysis it is clear that national identity may become various become may identity national that clear is it analysis stated above the From záhorácký National Identity: the Content andthe‘Other’ theContent Identity: National , sub-dialect is very very is Czech.As Rogers Brubaker argued close, sub-dialect his to during Valašsko and 24 Slovácko regions), while people from other CEU eTD Collection democratic traditions of the given country (if any).It seems that there is nothing as be pursue democraticdesires, of needs orto forexamplereminded ideals, to ifitthe previousthe cultural historical preciselyor by past, toservechosen state the thefunctions it constructionists, other For Ruth Wodak, Raymond it such beas Grewor wouldfrom anything apractical accidental and anything.of nation conjunction category state, including practically of people’s memory and in Billig’s version it is a process influenced from outside. present. However,in the is anatural rather the forgetting Renan’s understanding, component version of certain and of versions past of certain is composed identity national words, In other (Billig,ostensibly isforgetting being 2005:185). present” but sothere the of parallel recalled, is it as forgotten, is “[p]ast that emphasizes who Billig, Michael modernist, constructionist, find(Renan,in of enough,wecan 2003:27).Interestingly asimilar thework idea the amount forgetting. of Forgetting of nationsthe iffy is, accordinghim,chapters to necessary different type of materials, the outcome might slightly differ. content as presented in the history books. At the same time I am aware that if I was analyzingdiscourse, I am looking for content that in identity it. analyze Asnational to to Ichoose and approaches various contents various but is promoted by the state elites, the so to say official passive identities, such as religiousthe one (Ibid: 29-30). activity is importanta very partof identity,the distinguishing national identity from other him,According (Miller, to things 2000:29). “[n]ations thatdo together…” arecommunities as activity, and continuity aslonginit),historical peoplethe believe exists (nationality them in his David Miler, national identity understanding of consists parts: beliefthree For Rogers Brubaker, national identity would be a non-accidental content of an of content non-accidental be a would identity national Brubaker, Rogers For For Ernest Renan, a famous 19 th century 25 perennialist , national identity includes a fair the content CEU eTD Collection identity, alsoincludes answering the call layto down one’s life for the nation. Despite the call sacrificeultimate (Billig,Being 1995:8). from the same nation, the sharing same national everything they holdalready dear”(Ibid:35). inclusive Further,it be (Ibid:31-32). aimsbecause “[n]ationality,anonymous…” an to precisely maintainnamely howto solidarity among the populationsarelarge of states that and world, modern the of need pressing most the of one answers “…nationality as function has identity apositive As heclaims,national it(Miller,among creates 2000:32). that people 2003: 405). legitimization (Gellner, nation’s the as serves nation, a for condition necessary a basis, cultural shared understanding, nationals and citizens. Somehow similarly is the problem approached by Ernest Gellner. In his of –community community the of members of socialization help individuals, between rightsthe and dutieslegal institutions,state institutions,of underpin the provide bonds social identity, help toplace us ourselves this worldwithin function andfurther legitimization as of each other. complement despitebeapproaches aspresented by taking various, that different following works the may however functions exact The specificity. and uniqueness their emphasizing borders, the behind others the from them differentiating them, differentiate that features overshadowing and co-nationals the connect that features emphasizing together, nation the bind and hold therefore it is necessary to look at the sources of its success. Basically,national identities shall 2.3. Billig emphasizes another function of national identity, namely the possible call for call possible the namely identity, national of function another emphasizes Billig solidarity is the Miller, to according identity, national of function fundamental The national them among Identities, nations. of world a is world the Smith, to According As I have argued before, national identity is identity identity, successful andAs widespread a very arguedbefore, national I have identity, in canincorporate sub-groups this way demandingwithout that they forsake The Main Functions of National Identity of National Functions The Main 26 CEU eTD Collection Czechoslovak, Czech and Slovak history books, the change was very clear (Chapter 3). from be beseen same,the but hasto redefined,itself identity aswill analysisof the the stays identity national of function main the crisis, of times the In identities. other and religious acquireto (or socialization) during nationalidentity to as they are taughtgender,other ethnic, taught are they identity, national with born not are People legitimacy. its in people of believe with fall’ and ‘stands state nation or nation The function. primary the of results subsequent they are certainly although The functions, a other state. or nation nation, the of legitimization legitimization, essential, such(Hobsbawm, 1992:9),which are all functionsthe of currentthe national identity. as solidarity,membership, legitimizing those institutions and those functioning asmeans of socialization and cohesion social symbolize that socialthose are them Among identity. national promote to cohesion– flags,memorials, public and ceremonies other activities invented and by organized elites the and numerousintensified.Another modernist, hisEricintroduced Hobsbawm, ‘invented traditions’ theory of othersis call the crisis of in times peace, of in times present and articulated be to needed being not are identity identity is mostly non-consciously,transmitted as described by Michael Billig (2005) and the national is activity,however Iargue that (Renan,2003:34), aconscious plebiscite a daily „…political, state, institutional, media and everyday social (Ibid:practices…” 29). is maintained everydaybutalso1999:4) notonly sports etal., or by shaped practice“(Wodak media, politics, socialization (education, through identity“…„national internationalized [i]s states AsWodak state. given the by of members the internalized generation and to generation from andpassed it be actively has to transmitted byforgetting. Therefore, endangered 2.4. According to the Czech and Slovak case study, I believe that the crucial function is function crucial the that believe I study, case Slovak and Czech the to According There exist numerous ways of transmitting national identity, Renan states thatnation states identity, Renan national waysof transmitting There existnumerous National identity is not a part of natural humans’ genetic disposition so it is it so disposition genetic humans’ natural of a part not is identity National Transmitting National Identity National Transmitting 27 CEU eTD Collection more or less consciously and therefore it is almost impossibleforget to it. We absorb the information with nationally tuned message daily from numerous resources, means back arrivedbackhome’ arrived home safely co-nationals that our our to country etc. ‘tourists sentence the that and know news the listen to we country’; in living a particular are‘we in thereports ‘we’ the knowthat and we news the watch or newspapers the We read consciously reflected, however it consists of highly important almost subliminal information. is rarely 3), only (seeChapter Discourse used. discourse alsothe but of because weather, is themost detailedand news parts other also the focused,of such and sport are nationally as news national the news, national to isdedicated of news the large part a because usually only Newspapers and broadcastingtelevision obviously supports spreading nationalidentity,not lessons. music even and education civic history, national literature, national especially always subjects, tuned havenationally and secondary schools, especially elementary (Held, 2002;Hroch,2000; televisionSmith, broadcasting. 2001), and education, radio Public means of transmitting national identity (Hobsbawm, 1992). efficient as etc. anthems memorials, ceremonies, public as such traditions’ ‘invented calls publiche what thestate highlights activities, Eric Hobsbawm Similarly, (Price, 1995:40). highlights media theorist, Price, asMonroe work, also evenarchitecture works art postmarks, national or currency national the basis similar a On building. a on unattended hanging flag the us,silently around model national identity.us of reminding is our Theexample, Billig argues are all that but consciously notperceive do we usually that things currencies, symbols on remembered bynumerous primarily signs around us, suchasflags hangingbuildings, on natural possess,natural remember” butsomethingto to is (Billig,2005:184) and it ‘flagging Billig theory’. “[n]ationalthat states identity somethingis not be whichis to thought A very effective way of targeting large audience, isnewspapers A very largeaudience, publiceducation, also effective way of targeting 28 CEU eTD Collection see his remarkable work remarkable his see 13 invented despite manyof historical available myths,them occurrences and be traditions, may being less more or the of out but nothing, Not outof andrecreated. created constantly but given actions, influencing influenced and by reality; social is a the not naturally phenomenon that will national identity isunderstand athat by andas phenomenon produced human reproduced stressing the role of thenational elites, which, asIhave arguer before is the most promising. I approach, Iapply identities, a more constructionist national and Slovak specific Czech complex and difficult to analyze. However, for the purpose of the thesis, oriented towards public education materialspublic education and waysinexamine the is the‘other’which created. the identity, national carrier of most evident Iwillfocus on the respect. important case isan Slovak and Czech the in which ‘them’, without ‘us’ no is there as created, is identity national The pioneering concept of invented traditions was introduced by Eric Hobsbawm, for more information please information more for Hobsbawm, Eric by introduced was traditions of invented concept pioneering The Conclusion From all the above stated information, it is clear that the issue of national identity is identity national of issue the that is clear it information, stated above the all From 13 . I will focus not only on the content but also on the ‘other’ against which every The Invention of traditions (1992). 29 CEU eTD Collection 14 issue. brief provide the of overview is a in it necessary to discourse, constructed identities were/are the method used in this thesis. approach I explain analysis I the Before Slovakia. and CzechRepublic the Czechoslovakia, the message to the receiver, which implies a clear power structure. aclear power which implies receiver, messagetothe the as I will analyze school books thatinclude only on-way communication, from the creator of power should be intoaccount taken as well (Van Dijk, 1997:11-25). This is an importantpoint of question the and placement contextual the stylistics, and semantics syntax, from apart analysis,in that discourse Dijk as it highlights Van can be Therefore assumed, discourse. the to access influence their that roles societal certain possess communicators the Moreover, because discourse messageunderstandingcommunicatingand bythose comprehending Dijk, the (Van 1997:2), isestablishmentand identities…” renegotiation of (Tilly, aprocess butalso of 1996:7), always a part primarily languageabout the used,asitis thelanguage amedium that “…provides for the of a wider as discourse “anything ‘beyond sentence’” the (Schiffrin, Hamilton,is 2001:1), Tanne, that social However,reality forin academics by most a definition bewould topresent approved/agreed complicated that whichthe purpose it is transmitted.of this thesis, I adopt the more or less general perception of For in-depth analysis of discourse please see Deborah Schiffrin(2001:10-41). Discourse and Discourse Because my aim is to discover the numerous ways in which the Czech and Slovak national Methodology 3. In the following chapter I provide the analysis of the chosen materials from materials Iprovide chosen the the analysis of In thefollowing chapter Analysis discourse analysis is a very diverse field and therefore it is quite 30 14 . CEU eTD Collection elites to influence the perception of a certain identity. national a certain of perception toinfluencethe elites by maintainedthe and used created, thediscourse words, in another creating discourse, the which is mostthe suitablemy for intention to trace theidentities pursued by social the actors 2001:418-419).Among(Cotter, them chosen I have criticalthe analysis discourse (CDA) methods studies critical methods of or media/communication cognitive, practice focused, follows: etal. andareas 1999:30) arefurther(Wodak interwoven closely well. dimensions These dimensionsWodakthree by in etal. bemy 1999thatIwill Ruth as of analysis for using data into organized systematically thatwere andstrategies methods impliesCDA aplurality of changes and circle/spiral the is may andthe gashed discourse morebe changed visibly. changingbutnotdramatically, in only times of crucial societal the power structurechanges, is discourse The circle/spiral. vicious is a it say to better or inner-limited, is power their assume, I therefore, and in are they reality social the by influenced are they time same the at but choose, message they the it may communicate and over obtain power discourse access to Wodak, 1997;Van 1997;Wodaketal.Dijk, This 1999etc.). implies thatthosewhohave thatishighlightedover critical discourse bythenumerous (Fairclough, analysts discourse and (Fairclough,1997:258) communicated importance of Wodak, the questfor power the meaning isboth thatdiscourse creating by and created social the inreality itis which andsociety, the discourse between relationship two-sided analysesisthe discourse other inembedded acertain …”(Van context] 1997:2).WhatDijk, from makesCDA different is in … interaction [that which] languageusers and social accomplishparticipate social acts 3.1.1. as comparative/cross-cultural, such be may used, methods several analysis discourse For x CDA understands discourse as a “… practical, social and culture phenomenon [in phenomenon culture and social “… practical, asa discourse CDA understands Content analysis Content Critical Discourse Analysis 31 CEU eTD Collection have also at to look school the books werepublishedthat before 1993. 1993 both in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. In order to trace the change of the discourse, I personification. indirect, speech)” or or andmetonymy, forms (Ibid:other and reported synecdoche of 35-45) linguistic slips, allusions, rhetorical questions and the mode of discourse representation (direct vagueness in expressions,referential other or euphemism,linguistic hesitation and disruption, by stylesvariety areexpressed suchas„… using certain and (Ibid: 35). These change devicesserveconstruct unity, that to uniqueness,sameness andcontinuity differentiation,or 34). justification identification unification, by identity national promoting establish and construct to certain to „…attempt and solidarity, as well as differentiation…” (Ibid: 33) and use only somewill I therefore and nation other towards difference of maintenance and creation -the thesis of the three-model structurerealization and will adapt the intentionanalysis to my specific Content analysis of data the and orientationtext and of the at the same time the language user and For the purpose of the thesis I have chosen history school books that were published after published were that books school history chosen have I thesis the of purpose the For 3.1.2. The final dimension, final The x x Means and forms of of forms realization Means and Strategies signify linguisticthe used for features the of purpose strategy.the Iwillfollow this Selection of Materials directed at justification or relativisation of the group or other groups (Ibid: directedjustification orothergroups atof relativisation group the 33- or in this case implies qualitative method of text analysis; text of method qualitative implies case in this strategies means andformsofrealization they propose. Primarily, the 32 , then focuses on those syntactic focusesthose on , then constructive strategies means and forms of andforms means strategies strategies of imply imply the that CEU eTD Collection 1999, 2000and 2004)by publishingdifferent houses,such as Scientia, SPLand Práce. according to their internal rules or decision. internal or rules to their according After they obtain the authorization they are selected by each school or the history teachers Marek Pe used (Gracová,2007).The were books written by such authors, different as Pavel Augusta, researchwidely books school history recent the to according but authorized, officially not book for secondary school, written by various contemporary authors. one and schools ofelementary last grades for the mainly were They from Czech. translated books were1988. Two in in language two Slovak, andtwowereinCzech but Slovak in publishing Czech state years: housesin the following 1962,1971,1981,1984,1987and bothlocal in They written schools. Slovak Czech and language, publishedeither in or Slovak approved distributed andsubsequently to Education books, bythecontemporary Ministry of IhaveFor several purpose this chosen identities werethen constructed. and national Slovak necessary to analyze schools books that were used before thebreak up and seehow the Czech and one book for secondary school, one book, D school regulations) decides willwhich book be used duringlessons. his/her internal the on (depends teacher each or school each books authorized the From Education. 3.1.5. 3.1.3. 3.1.4. School books in Slovakia have to be authorized by the Slovak Ministry of Education. In order to be able to trace the different discourse used in the post-breakup period, itis period, be thedifferentdiscourseused in trace able to In post-breakup the to order For my analysis I have chosen mainly books for the last grades of elementary schools elementary of grades last the for books mainly chosen have I my analysis For School books in the Czech Republic have to be authorized by the Czech Ministry of Ministry by Czech bethe authorized to have in Republic books Czech the School þ enka, Ji Materials from Slovakia Materials from pre-1993 Period Materials from the Czech Republic Ĝ í Jožák andFrantišek ý apka and published in different yearsinapka andpublished (1995,1996, different 33 Č jepis v kostce II [ History snapshot II] was is was CEU eTD Collection distinction to a greater distinction between the nations, as some might expect. In caseof In the expect. might some as nations, the between distinction a greater to distinction differentiation, however, does not have an unequivocal character of development from smaller The periods isalsodifferentiated. from separate in books the the discourse the that difference isdefinitely between before-1993 discourse,it andhas the post-1993 tobenoted main the Although identities. national Slovak Czech and of creation discursive to the orunifiedperiods series.books school World War I or II etc. However, I have attempted to use books that focus on the whole set of followingthe historical periods: whole books from prehistoric times until presence. I will focus only on the interpretation of 2006) by publishingdifferent houses,such as the Orbis ItropolitanaPictus and SPN. years2005 andEva ChylováLetz andin andRóbert 2003, published different (1994,1997, infor students last history snapshot of the grade schools. secondary schools. Again, one book was not authorized by the Ministry of Education but serves as a 3.2. Not all the books cover all the above stated periods, some present only period of only periods,somethe present cover stated all above the all Not books the x x x x the analyze not and myresearch of boundaries the set had I thesis the of extent the to Due 3.1.6. The books are written by various authors, such as L’ubomír Lipták, Anna Bocková, Lipták, L’ubomír suchas byvarious authors, arewritten The books secondary and elementary the for both books school chosen have I my analysis For The analyzed school books contain several similarities and differences when it comes The breakup and of Czech Federative 1993 Republic Slovak Re-establishment of Czechoslovakia after World War II The establishmentindependentof Slovak in state 1939 of The establishment Czechoslovakia in 1918 Analysis The Scopeofthe Research 34 CEU eTD Collection detailed study of the documents, major discursive trends can be detected as seen below: according to Czech rather balanced. Furthermore, usedare strategies books the post-1993 the moderately in prevail, post-1993Slovakthe the books differentfrequency intentions.and Inthepre-1993 period the tendency that, however, does not continue over a certain border. in random. also books rather Differentiation pre-1993 the showonly increasing a slightly andis books) breakup in the and(especially inafter Czech rightthe theperiod especially howeverperiod, differentiation the category this within has onlyslightly tendency growing schoolpost-1993 books, differentiationthe is higher in than from books the previous the 3. 2. 1. Interestingly, the same discursive strategies are used in both the periods, although with name of the country, its‘Czechoslovakia’ and ‘Czechoslovak’ hyphenedand its versions foras a label the citizens, people,The use of soldiers‘Czechoslovak’ or ‘Czecho-Slovak’ language, by which I mean etc.the use of It certainlyexamples were found too. served in the Czech and is Slovakbooks. This approach almostpre- absentin despite some pre-1993, the especially history inhowever books, intensity the post-1993 varies its in both the be This and can foundinformation ‘other’. approach the avoiding etc. cultures about politics, territories, nations, Slovak and between Czech differences Emphasizing events. historical certain with connection in especially rarely, rather though even books, pre-1993 books,howeveris it in also present Czech post-1993 the and Slovak history This in becan approach the especially found etc. cultures politics, nations, territories, between fatesand Slovak and Czech intentions, differences avoiding territories, goals, Stressing similarities or common approach of Czech and Slovak nations, peoples, 35 justification strategies constructive strategies prevail and in and prevail CEU eTD Collection names are usually easy distinguishable) or brought in the picture, but balanced, butinmeaning, picture, that brought the distinguishable)names areusually or easy Slovak and Czech because differentiation, picture the into bring not to order (in out left are names the either – varies people) of (names anthroponyms and places) of (names toponyms of usage the Interestingly in 1918. Czechoslovakia first of the establishment the talking about ‘our people’, soldiers’, ‘our enemies’,lands’, ‘our ‘our homeland’, own ‘our especially when - pronouns personal of use the Similarly, masses’. ‘the or proclaimed’ was Czechoslovakia it refers toSlovaksuch distinguishCzech lands, whether as‘inmanycities or peoples, sameness andsimilarity in evident usethe of vague referents – when itis impossible to purpose both purpose the are moderate; however is For rather books The other school trend this alsoevident. the Czechs andSlovaks. between differences disregards almost completely from book 1962 that will inbooks attainsforms,variousmost thepre-1993 the ‘extreme’ befoundone can in the isin present alsosomehow books. post-1993 the Emphasizing similarand approach common 3.2.1. Among the Among As I have announcedit before is widely used in pre-1993history the althoughbooks, it historical period. the on irrespectively version hyphened the in if then and books in Slovak available difference of Czech the and discourses Slovak rather– availableinCzech not- books, main the of one is categorization its and language Czechoslovak books Slovak and similarities. And secondarily, as will be seen in the analyzis of separate Czech and differences stressing – trends both encompasses it because Primarily reasons. two for category as specific language a have of I Czechoslovak use too. functions the defined as 1993 period an indicator identity,of howeveritstate has Iarguethat additional Similarities and Commonalities constructive constructive strategies constructive and justificationstrate the most used are the strategies of inclusion, 36 gies areused. gies CEU eTD Collection Ignored again is the inner problematic situation of the republic, the differences between Czech between differences republic,the the of situation againis the innerproblematic Ignored inSudetenland etc. Germans Kingdom, Hitler, Munich, United France, scapegoating –on supportingjustification Slovaks fightingfor… it (Czechoslovakia –commentby again’.author) also from the discourse used for the post-war period ‘crippledis evident Czechoslovakia’, events the avoid and ‘Czechsignore to and An attempt introduced. is language vague and picture of leftthe out are its representatives Slovakand party people’s about information suppressed, are approaches different and state. Differences independent Slovak first of establishmentthe be found, especially when it comes to the inner crisis of the first Czechoslovakia and the emphasized. Further, among the is common threat – the common problem the for Slovaks, bigger threat Hungarians a the nations.inner state minoritiesSometimes or neighboring– threat countries.common their and Thesehomeland’ their entities defend to also wanted serve ‘they as thecooperation ‘other’ and solidarity to both it is writtennations, the links between fraternal the also are emphasized decided’, Slovak peoples that Germansunite in people’ such is to emphasized, Czechoslovakia as in ‘the Czech following: the and were a describing situation. Similarly, the post-1918 cohesion and the unification and the ‘will of bigger threat idyllic relations of nationsthe and is within common the state obviously mainly present while for Czechs and positives emphasizing singularisation, strategy of the strategy, Another Czechoslovakia. andof establishment the after nations’ the both for freedom ‘new the and Empire’ now and then,such ‘thecenturial subjection as in nationsthe Austro-Hungarian of the prevail. names Czech sometimes although arementioned, Sobota) Rimavská Bratislava, R. Štefánik, Masaryk, names(e.g. Slovak Pilsen)T.G. and Prague, both Czech (e.g. On the issue of the first independent Slovak state, but not only on that, strategies of Similarly the continuation of the nations is stressed and the differentiation between differentiation andthe is stressed nations the of continuation the Similarly arealso strategy used,especiallythe responsibility shifting andof constructive strategies 37 , frequently strategies of avoidance can CEU eTD Collection few cases duringCzechoslovakia thefirst is that ‘our republic’,stated meaning belonging in a expressed,only not arerather andSlovaks with Slovakia similarities the Czech books the in Similarly minor arguments. arerather these however, with agree Munich’, not Slovaks did together and united in1918is emphasized.it Similarly,is stressed ‘Czechs that both and different historical emphasize they time same the at while closeness, cultural and political the mention books development. In a fewmuch less common in the Czech andpublished books Slovak 1993.Some after of Slovakthe books the common will of the two nations neverI mentionedtoin cross beginningof the chapter. the be they border certain the created which WarWorld II, after Czechoslovakia of re-establishment livepeople’ expressed together, to Czechoslovakia during the of in1918and establishment Slovak and Czech of will ‘common the with covered and minor rather are they differences, some be/were/are might there even is though that books messagethese of important be most Whatseems the to identities. national Slovakand between Czech relationship stateidentity, tothe inattached however same influencedthe itcrucially the mutual time suppressed, avoided or leftterritories, is highlighted by outvarious means, while their differencesof are mostly the(but not always) picture. I am aware that contemporary and the Slovakdiscourse part of Czechoslovakia were only ‘a few collaborators on both sides’. was they do. Similarly,minimization did they weretoldonly to what isintroduced – intheCzech symbolizes the rationalizationalso threat external The onepossibility. only andSlovakia for Czechlands – introduced is solution another of inability the strategy ‘order’, of language the Similarly, Czechoslovakia. of end’ – only one chance left metaphorspolitical Naturalizing and metonymies parties. are used,such as ‘Munich meantthe and the avoidance strategy ignoredclaims are autonomist and the and politicians certain territories, Slovak of Slovak – The similarities and commonalities between the nations and national are identities andnational nations between the and commonalities The similarities To summarize, among pre-1993books the similaritiesthe of nations twothe andtheir 38 CEU eTD Collection and also differences. and also This Slovak istheaim books. comingthe of sub-chapter. and Czech the both in used are they way the and differentiation pursuing strategies the at look distinguished how they and the‘other’ itdefine themselves against isclosely necessary to see how they To were evidently distinguished. entities thetwo between differences the and breakup re-shaped the nationalthe identitiesThis implies after books. were that pre-1993 strategies inboth sets post-1993 the are of books present, butare rather minor to compared the inbooks. Obviously, the thewarisboth CzechandSlovakafter theuniting discourse present Czechoslovakia of re-establishment the wanting Slovaks and Czechs exiled of will common goal World War after the is and of II, punishment Nazis collaborators, emphasized.The both to Czechs and Slovaks,has the same ‘troubles’ – theneighbors. Similarly,their common analyzed books and the and books analyzed the other, in other minimization andfocus merely many creation and others) on the of legitimization, cohesion, words,and unification on emphasis autonomization, singularization, if self-identification, wepositive look solely (the national identity at of creation of content the If leave discursive the we aside picture. the relation of the two entitiesHungarians, Poles and innerminorities. within the –Germans, other‘others’ atthe aimed wasthen usually Differentiation prevailed. picture. the of out left were toponyms and anthroponyms Slovak cases some In But avoidance. of strategy this tendency the was difference the of creation in the detected have I strategy repeated only identities. The national was their and nations two the of commonalities and rathersimilarities emphasize to mainly minor and the emphasis of commonalities largely 3.2.2. Contrary to the pre-1993 books, the books publisheda different 1993containedbooks after books, the pre-1993 the Contrary to As I have argued before, the pre-1993 books contained served books that pre-1993 As Ihave features before, the discursive argued Differentiation justification strategies 39 used, we encounter the following similarities following the we encounter used, CEU eTD Collection Havel (1 in more times recent governments, Czechoslovak) Slovak and (Czech Prague alternatively inferior toCzechs, Slovaks were usingprimitive agricultural incomparisontools todeveloped influence of church in the republic thatled to the division of the state, Slovaks were culturally the lower to refused that Slovaks the books Czech the in similarly And etc. demands Slovak understandwillingproclaimforcedCzech Slovaks to to not being politicians autonomy,the was established, Slovak state independent the on which Hácha meeting the about summoning information, other any before state Slovak independent first in the growth’ ‘employment in leveling responsibility wecanand Therefore Slovakthe comparison. books read about will later.be seen as ranks, Slovak own the sometimes into blame isalso the in thecaseof Slovakia Poles and less the Hungarians, the Germans, – the well as wereemphasized ‘others’ other the influence, itis mention external that to necessary 1993breakup.However, the before compromise SlovakSlovak president)or Peoples Party and unnamedSlovak recent politicians unwilling to Hácha (3 president), Czechoslovak (2 identified asBeneš was traitor main the of Slovakia, –inthe case parties political or representatives political at but asawhole, nation other the to blame shifted was the always not Interestingly, in cases. same the blamed mostly theCzechswere books, Slovak the ‘in loud’.moreof In theindependencewasmore callfor and secondthe state Slovakia Slovak establishment in the or apart’, republic the tearing today were bolshevism, and hungarianism from for protection Czechoslovakia of borders the at ago years twenty looking who were ‘ThoseindependentSlovak state of first the describing establishment before situation books Czech in the such as ‘us’and‘them’, between thedifference responsibility, emphasizing Another strategy Another strategy frequently was trivialization,used bringinginto the picture co- Primarily,in both sets of we encounterbooks strategies shiftingof blame and st Czechoslovak president after 1989); in some Czech books the traitors was Tiso (1 rd Czechoslovak during Czechoslovak president, World WarII), 40 nd st CEU eTD Collection of the rationalization strategy. rationalization of the usage of allusions andfictive scenarios (‘whatwould havehappened if’), which are alsoapart frequent is the case in Slovak the is different What well. as was emphasized threat external the books the both In for Czechoslovakia’. option other no was there occurrences external the however slightly ‘dueto books, differently that – stating language usedinsome Czech was similar Interestingly, invaders’. way tobesavedfrom if was ‘there wasnoother Slovakia in – establishmentindependentfirstin tothe books Slovakconnection of the Slovak state the solvewould not simply anything, asthere way.was noother Avery similaris approach used a referendum that bythe argument sometimes supported is stated, political representatives possibility,other divide theto republic only andfinally Sometimes theinabilityrest. of in case the of 1993breakup.the both In Czech Slovak wasand stated books that was there no prevails. Czechoslovakia Czechspartially and information howeverthe about apparent, isthat not balance of lack the books, Czech of case the In world. the of rest the about information brief versus issues, Slovak of overrepresentation – texts the of content the influenced highly which external Thehistory were mainlyworld. books purely towards nationaloriented history, the also but Czechs, such, as Czechoslovakia about information only not aside leaving history, Slovak and Slovakia on only usually – books the of orientation the from clear primarily ‘other’. of the co-responsibility of the accusation breaking of events history the since 1918 weredescribed least with partialat discursive basically, all what’, ‘whostarted find out to impossible is italmost cases historical most In 1989etc. after republic the of name traditional the against were politicians Czechs, Slovak Another is which in lacked especially examples the case, Slovak inboth The balance, discourse justification strategy used was the rationalization strategy, mainly presented 41 CEU eTD Collection limited scope of the thesis I am not able to present it.presentable to of I am not thesis the scope limited the however dueto more attention, much detailed materials deserve visual would additional both or only symbols nation; one state –whichflags etc. Analysiswould beput of these representatives –whether of next 1993breakup;politicians the information to the justabout Slovak important state’; photos of figures,in suchas one Slovakbook photothe of pope the demonstration in Bratislava holdingbanners with people with ‘We inscription the want our the choicecontemporary documents, but also about the additional visualof information in the books, about photos itschoolsis books notonly famous quotes the of about from politicians and quotes a of events, (aswill Czechoslovak period be later). analyzed such as anonymous. Identically leave books Slovak the information out about Czechs the butalso in one or depersonalized are usually They vaguely. expressed are Czechothers and Slovaks representatives, schoolpolitical their and people Czech Czechterritory, andCzechs, Czechoslovakia across book wecome books Czech In the etc. inner conditions parties, political its representatives, nation, the photobasically negatives aboutavoiding nation the andinformation avoiding ‘other’ the about from groups of demagogues‘the worst and moral were causing dregs’ ‘injustice’. small warminimization was used.Only the republic before called Czecho-Slovak second independent Slovakia, Tuka and Mach. Similarly in the Czech books, while addressing the so- caused everything, sometimes only people,two Slovak politicians from periodthe of first here where we encounter the strategy of minimization – it wasjust asmall political group that some Slovak books, Slovaksin emphasizing number haveAs whocausedsomething.arguedbefore, small the of I people were blamed for the events during the first Slovak state. It is Finally, an often used strategy is that of legitimization. In the case of the post-1993 Another very frequent strategy in theused bookswas strategy the of avoidance, minimization, of strategy the was books of sets the both in used strategy Another 42 CEU eTD Collection version without hyphen. In the end compromise name was adopted, The Czech and Slovak Federative Republic. Federative Slovak and Czech The adopted, was name compromise end the In hyphen. without version the representatives Czech version, hyphen the favored representatives Slovak representatives. Slovak and Czech 15 historical events. strategies more examples history,during also of times common the part andCzechoslovak Czech lacking usually information, the of content the to comes it when balanced less slightly were stressed Further, books books from the differentiation too. SlovakSlovaks history Czech Czechoslovaks, also chapter next the in seen be will as and Czechs from differentiation the same intensitymade with wasnot differentiation nations, the two the differentiate usedto were tendencies and directed at theidentities were clearly in divided post-1993schoolthe books. Although several samesimilar entities – while Slovak books emphasized the historical periods in both written inhistoricalinbooks periodsit both Czech and Slovak.wassemi-frequent, Theuseof (Chapter 1.1), butalso the approach towards the two nations according my to findings,important alsoand reflects not only historical proper the name is, Slovak and Czech between hyphen the of use the Moreover, territories. their and nations Slovak Czech and the between anddifferences similarities present the to unwillingness or willingness the symbolizes italso in discourse the that believe I case. However, (2000) would argue, it served as a basis for creation of the state identity, which is certainly the in the pre-1993 period,‘Czechoslovak’. TheCzechoslovak languageisobviously useof Czecho-Slovak and present as Czechoslovakia term uniform the by covered nations the between similarities and differences of substitution was the official name of the state and as Hroch The issue of the hyphen in the name of the republic was a part of the post-1989 political negotiations between negotiations political post-1989 of the a part was republic ofthe name the in hyphen ofthe issue The 3.2.3. To conclude this sub-chapter, as was seen from the numerous examples, aswasseen national from To conclude this numerous sub-chapter, the In the pre-1993 period Czechoslovak language was used without the hyphen forIn the used hyphen Czechoslovak the all pre-1993 period languagewas without the Czechoslovak language is, apart from an indicator of Czechoslovak state identity, a were found, especially the rationalization strategy aimed at justification of certain of justification at strategy aimed rationalization the found, especially were ‘Czechoslovak’ and ‘Czechoslovak’ and ‘Czecho-Slovak’ Language 43 15 . justification CEU eTD Collection included only Similarly Slovakia. toponymsthe anthroponyms and Slovak. wereonly books maps inthe break Czechoslovakia’, to wedge the wasonly ‘Slovakia minimization butblameshiftingfight, wouldtheCzechoslovakwas of –‘peoples government against’, use of words, innegatively connotated framed isusually Czechoslovakia periods. correct Czechoslovaks. Almost uniformly is hyphen version the used and notonlyfor historically the more or less differentiate Slovakia from Czechoslovakia and Slovaks from Czech and Slovak is stressed. Czechoslovakia of utility the also Sometimes representatives. political Slovak of will the to as opposite is stressed people Czech of will the however, in few, Czechoslovakia, in Slovaks and Czechs of junction voluntary the emphasized it is books several In such. as Czechoslovakia of idyllic depiction tothe similarly frequent, wasquite personifications words, in naturalizingmetaphorsexpressed and connotated the positively useof as emphasizing such unification strategies or ofborders’ unify’, ideas ‘Czechoslovak to Czechoslovak people the commonstrategies external people yourhas dream truth’ come and full maps of WithinCzechoslovakia. the threat. strategies Further, thehyphen historical and Within period.only addressingtheproper while picture of Czechoslovakia was of similarity the pre-1993periodduring as analyzed previously in chapter. this words, it intentions andbut named, In Slovak Czechand peoples. unidentified other closely of the significantlyelement of the andasan todefend’ wanted soldiers ‘Czechoslovak or decided’ people as ‘Czechoslovak such supplemented the discursive features used for the emphasis of justification Contrary to the Czech books, the Slovak books provide quite a different picture and Czechoslovak language was also significant in the Czech school books, bothas in books, a part Czech school the significant wasalso language Czechoslovak we come across such ‘Czechoslovak as using quotes, strategies, legitimization across come , we the unification strategies, such as expressing the ‘will of constructive strategies constructive and constructive strategies , it expressed the singularity and unification of the goals , usually without hyphen, only rarely with the with rarely only hyphen, without usually , 44 constructive justification CEU eTD Collection identity so sharply. so identity always sharp,anditthat did not differentiate itself from previousthe Czechoslovak state not was opposition the Slovak, against created was identity national Czech the Although state. other asthe Czechoslovak against also but nation, other asthe Czechs the towards only not created was identity national case Slovak the in Especially opposite. the emphasized discourse identity. post-1993 Czechoslovak The state contemporary for the a basis served as important, I believe, is strategies. In andcommonalities similarities pre-1993period, the the Themost wereemphasized. common will of the two identities hassignificantly nationschanged after1993breakup, the while using thesame discursive to be together, that at the same Czechoslovakia. state, multi-national from previous the Slovaks during the years of coexistence in one state. Moreover it symbolizes the dissimilation and oppression the signifying hyphen)Czechoslovaksof (without and on Czechscaused continuity. In Slovak books it was used state as the a strategysymbolizes also it but of dissimilarity, Slovaks, of requirements and stressingdemands neglecting the and differencesSlovaks Czechsin and era Czechoslovak to of the connection negatives and preventing Slovaks, it1993 books was used asastrategy similarity of and avoiding betweenCzechs differences to create state ‘Czechoslovak’ identity state Rak,2000;Suda, (Mišková, 1995). In Czech post- differences between Czechs and Slovaks (whatever they are) and in the same time it was way CzechsandSlovaks.the findings, the hyphen in these cases was not meant to unify,but express the difference between my to According hyphen. the with exclusively almost if then and Czechoslovakia of times the evenin not of people, agroup addressing asanadjective never used almost was Czechoslovak Conclusion To conclude,language Czechoslovak before 1993wason one side waytoveil the The chapter has shown that the discursive creation of Czech and Slovak national Slovak Czechand of creation discursive the that hasshown The chapter 45 CEU eTD Collection instruments unveiled the process unveiled nationalinstruments process in the construction of identities discourse. the written before 1993andboth Czech and written Slovak 1993.Theafter use of those those books, of sets three all usedin were strategies same the Interestingly, etc. balance of lack avoiding, responsibilities, of shifting scapegoating, trivialization, minimization, as such used, were instruments discursive numerous analysis the from seen As was books? school national identity and identity national namely: The analysis also provided two answersfor the subsequent of questions thesis,the Which instruments were used in the discursive construction of Slovak Czech and of construction discursive ininstruments wereusedthe How can the process be traced in Czechoslovak, Czech and Slovak in Czech Czechoslovak, be traced process canthe 46 CEU eTD Collection published and before after the 1993 Asbreakup.in Iargued theoreticalthe concerning chapter in as presented approach of works the Wodak (1999)orBrubaker (2003). adopted constructionistthe I Therefore Czech andSlovak onthe identities national territories. of changes failexplain situation in numerous to the somehow present interest lackthe the of unchanging or as a part of and perennialist theorieseither thatunderstand national identity somethingas immemorial, natural order. Similarly,subsequent redefinition of identitiesthe is certainly a strong argumentagainst primordialist the ethno-symbolist numerous promising. Thechangesyears settings and regimes inof political last100 the and theories with be most the seemed to approach theconstructionist identities national Slovak and of Czech inhoweverindefinite, almost the case itare approaches towards possible identities’ issueand national of complexity the chapter, in theoretical the Ihaveargued As lot of attention. identities. national Czech unveiled post-1993 that and national discourse Slovak identities’ in the changes analysisstructured identitynational of issue the inand general a comparative of analysis either Czech or Slovak theyfocusedgranted, – of and picture on pre-1993period onlyonepartthe only the described national identity. high,This thesismost offulfilled the works1993. Although number of writingCzechauthors about and Slovak relations is relatively the containedgaps and provided threein Slovakia and Republic Czech the independentstates, of two subsequent establishment a majorwell difficulties identities Slovak breakupofCzech Federative the and Slovak and national Republic after – they took national identity as Conclusions The materials chosen for the discourse analysis were the history school books history school analysis were the discourse the for The materials chosen a deserve world of contemporary identities collective as powerful identities National The aim of the thesis was to unveil the process creationof and recreation of Czech and 47 CEU eTD Collection against the Slovak, as Brodský (2004) and Holý (1997) argue, however was delimitation argue, the (1997) andHolý Slovak,Brodský the (2004) against as caused by it ofmy Czechnational scope the the was Concerning identity, created research. against asKusý(Kusý,created Hungarians, might which however suggests be 1997), again national identity. national Slovak identity in analyzedthe documentsis also not evidently that which iswas something completely that missing inthe secondary Slovakliterature concerning Czechoslovaks, Slovak Czech and both Czechoslovaks, also against interestingly Czechs and although not with sameintensity.the TheSlovak national identity mostlywas created against national identities each other, against created frequently and Slovaks and between Czechs researches. Ibelieveschools books. it that would pursue be in to this interesting topiclater further in the were analyzed that periods historical of the by thechoice thesis and of the scope limited the by caused is partly believe I Which, Jew. or Roma nor Ruthenian/Russian, or Austrian as wasnever characterized the ‘other’ Interestingly, German). usually 1918-1939 Sudeten period was usually defined as German, Hungarian,smaller to extent Poleminority or member (in the before 1993almost univocally supported innerthe closeness both nations.the of The ‘other’ of Czech and Slovak national identities has significantly changed. The publishedschool books identities the breakupafter in from 1993, abovethe statedanalysisis it clear that construction partly eitherdisapproved. or approved, approved were major expectations four the and subsequently created? were answered ‘newthe other’ one? other the against defined Slovaks and Czechs of identity national the was possible. public widest the to identity, national case in this messages, communicate/transmit to how ways most efficient of the areone materials educational identity, national On the contrary to the pre-1993 books, the post-1993 books emphasized differences books thepost-1993 books, pre-1993 the to contrary On the national Slovak and Czech the between ‘othernesses’ of extent the Concerning By the means of the analysis twomajor questions of the thesis,namely: to 48 How what was/is extent CEU eTD Collection mutual be identities unveiled.The mutual alsonational astheapproved can analysis delimitation of afterdiscourse 1993wassubstantive. The expectation concerning different the strength of in the differentiation occurred asthe correct obviously was which breakup, the identity after national Slovak Czech and of differentiation of expectation –the canbeapproved literature enables. of this thescope thesis than more attention deserve would improvised calendars and onthe dates photos the of choice same period.), CarpathianRutheniabetweenthe Bohemia, whileaddressingdivision Moravia,and Slovakia only, in books even about whole chapters the the Czechoslovakia,Czech including maps territory prevailingly books Slovakian Slovakmaps (In of choice the material, of pictorial created closeness or distance of the two entities,but also the visual materials used. The choice discourse the only not books analyzed in the that out stress to important is it over More thatisdiscourse usedirrespectively nameof in proper the of republicthe the givenperiod. strategies as other and well.legitimization minimization, trivialization, More blame, of shifting are strategies interestingly, the ‘other’ used Mostly strategies. same discursive with isthe created books in theanalyzed all ‘other’ is also created via a hyphen in the Slovak ‘other’ and concentrate rather on the content of the national identity. leave the out to tend while other two, the compare and difference the accentuate to tend books some differences, arecertain there butthat books, post-1993 in and thepre- all created would addasmuch the as Slovak identity does. I and identity state Czechoslovak the from itself differentiate not does identity national Czech that others totheideas Hroch of (2000)and in corresponds Thispresent also the discourse. is not other Czechoslovak the however mentioned; are ‘others’ Other sharp. always not that It isbasedwhichIt study expectations evident also secondary on of preliminary the To answer the question, how is the new ‘other’ created; I think it is evident that the uniformly not is ‘other’ the that emphasize to important is it before, said was As 49 CEU eTD Collection distance are produced notnatural. areproduced distance and The proximity regimes. contemporary legitimizeandassist the to constructed primarily both relations are national argue that preandthe ofCzechandidentities post-1993 Slovak I Therefore, only 1993. occurred after discourse of change the breakup.Similarly precede the not did identity national of change the that likely more seems it Therefore republic. the mostly splitthe indicate sociologic against receiversof research 1993breakupthe of as and weresilent thesis, people firstthis sentences of As inthe Ihaveargued process. opposite national identity of suddenchangeOne the might bythe was actual change argue that caused from picture. the in thesimilarities disappeared differencesthe in somehow reminded, prevailedand the post-1993 real world; period between similarities were largely identity. In pre-1993 Czechs and Slovaks national the howeveras naturally nationalpossessed identity nothing asand unambiguously articulateddiscursively the timingseems beto obvious thatthereis nothing asnatural and inevitable history,of nothing direction of the change seems to in 2). identity as presented chapter refer national of function the account into to(Taking similar very be will trends main the different, were if even Ibelieve sources the However, that ‘others’). in thecaseof other (especially Similarly, if the choice of periods was different, the outcomes would also slightly differ analysis. the of theoutcomes level influences certain materials upto choice of the thesis, primarily, the choice of materials and the historical periods. As I have argued elsewhere in the Slovakidentity appear national notdidto be right. Czech and between relation changeless the concerning expectation last minor The rather materials althoughonly wasinthe studied be too, this trend ‘others’ can approved partly third expectation concerning construction the of giventhe national identities towards other I have two final remarks. As was seen from the historical overview and the analysis, it study, the of weaknesses possible and limitations the out point to necessary isalso It 50 CEU eTD Collection historical examples and stability in the unstable times. unstable inthe stability and examples historical of asource ‘disposable’ In thissituation of positive as values, was uncertainty, nation overall unemploymentbeinglifestyle and valueswere disrupted. wasgrowing, wasdecreasing, their initial optimism andhopes, many rise of people werenegatively influenced by these changes, the after Therefore, system. social the and benefits social of change by mainly transformation andsocial inothers and decrease occupations incertain conditions of salary increase privatization of many state enterprises, reduction (Pot enterprises,of power purchasing state many privatization of reduction growth of competition on labor markets, rationalization of production, relocation of sources, transformation society, economic wascharacterizedby of of liberation andmarkets, prices more issue.1989 complex Thetransformation post encompassedeconomic andsocial both regime, it hasnew and setting to political new be the of noted legitimization of aquestion primarily was identities that the ‘return to the nation’ after the fall of communism was a This leads me to my final remark. Although I am convinced that the change of national 51 Ĥþ ek, 1999), CEU eTD Collection Eisenstadt, Shmuel Noah, Bernhard Giesen. 2003. “Konstrukce kolektivní identity kolektivníShmuel identity “Konstrukce Eisenstadt, 2003. Giesen. [The Bernhard Noah, Ć ý Cotter, Colleen. Tannen, and Cotter, 2001.”Discourse Heidi Media”.InDeborah Schiffrin, Deborah Chmel, Rudolf. 2004. Chmel,“ÚvodRudolf. [The 1997. Introduction]” Chmel In Rudolf (ed.). Castano, Emanualle. 1998. In S. Worchel, J.F.Morales, D. Paez, J.C. Deschamps (Eds.). Bystrický,“Štátnos 2007. Valerián. March “Thesis2008. Central European Workshop”. 17.-25. 2008. Brubaker, Rogers. Brubaker, Rogers. 2003.“PBrubaker, Rogers. Brown, Rupert.1995. Brodský, Ji Billig, Michael.“Banal 2005. Nationalism”. InSpencer, Philip,Woolman Howard (eds.). Bar-Tal, Daniel.1998.“Group Beliefs as an Expression of Social Identity”. In S. Worchel, J.F. Barány, Eduard. 2007. “(Ne)budovanie štátu [The (non)building of State]” In Bibliography apek, Karel.1929. apek, urovi þ otázka dnes. Výborz textov Sociologické nakladatesltví, pp.361-374. Sociologické nakladatesltví, nacionalismus. Construction of Collectivepp.32-40. Identity]”.Texts theOS Compilation ofMagazine (1997-2006] from In Hroch, Miroslav (ed.). otázka dnes. Výbor ztextov otázka dnes. Youth.]. Publishers, pp.416-436. E. Hamilton (eds.). 20. storo Social Identity. Kaligram, pp.50-59. Compilationof theOS Texts Today. The from Magazine (1997-2006] Slovenská otázka dnes. Výbor ztextov Slovenská otázkadnes. Výbor University. Budapest. reader.]. národ anacionalismus. InHroch, Miroslav (ed.). in NewEurope]. the Question National the and Nationhood Reframed. [Nationalism nahodilá událost kategorie, forma, praktická Available from: . 196. Nations and Nationalism. AReader pp.93-113. Morales, D. Paez, J.C. Deschamps (Eds.). Deschamps J.C. Paez, D. Morales, 25-31. Texts Compilation of the from OS Magazine(1997-2006] , Lubomír. 2007. “Tá, Lubomír. [Our(Slovak) naša identita 2007. (slovenská) In Identity.]” Ĝ í. Czech 2004. Identity toEurope. [online]and Returning 01.03.2008]. S.l. [cit. Praha: Aventinum- Praha: þ Praha:Sociologické375-385. nakladatesltví, pp. í [The í [The Slovak Question inthe 20 Hovory s T.G.M. V Hovory sT.G.M. Mé slovanské pochybnosti [MySlovakDoubts]. Prejudice: Its socialpsychologyPrejudice: Its ý London: SagePublications, pp.40-58. ítanka text The Handbook ofDiscourse Analysis Ĝ ehodnocení národní identity: národníehodnocení jakonárod institucionalizovaná ý ý þ Ĥ Ģ þ ítanka text asopisu OS1997-2006[The Slovak Question Today.The . [Views onnationandnationalism.Thereader.]. darovaná, asopisu OS 1997-2006 [The Slovak Question Today. The SlovakQuestion [The Today. OS1997-2006 asopisu in. Č k Mladosti. [The Talks with T.G.M. The Years of Talks with The k Mladosti.[The T.G.M. . Edinburgh: University Edinburgh 184- Press, pp. 52 þ Ĥ þ asopisu OS 1997-2006 SlovakQuestion 1997-2006 [The asopisu OS . [Views on nation andnationalism.The . [Viewsonnation i vnútená Given [Statehood Imposed?]”or In th Social Identity. Century] . Oxford: Blackwell. . Bratislava: Kaligram, pp. 5-36. . Bratislava: Kaligram, pp. . Malden, Mass: Blackwell Mass: . Malden, London: SagePublications, Bratislava: Kalligram. . Bratislava: Kaligram, . Bratislava: Pohledy na národa Slovenská otázkave Slovenská . Bratislava: Pohledy na Slovenská Praha: CEU eTD Collection Krej Kandert, Josef. 2000.“Národní tradice [National aidentita tradition identity].”and In “StereotypyKamenec, Ivan. v 2007. v slovenskej dejinách slovenských historiografii a [The Hroch, Miroslav. 2000. “Národní “Národní [Nationalidentita Hroch, Miroslav. In andIdentity].” a tradice 2000. Tradition Holý,Ladislav. 2001. Hobsbawm, Eric. 1992. Havel, Václav. 2006. In “The Foreword” Havel, 2000. Václav. Gun Grew, Raymond. identity “Konstrukce národní 2003. [The Construction of National Gracová, Blažena. 2007. “Poznatky z Výzkumu aktuální podoby výuky d podoby aktuální “Poznatky Blažena.zVýzkumu 2007. Gracová, Gilroy,“Between Camps” Paul. Philip Woolman 2005.(eds.). In Spencer, Howard 2003. “NacionalismusGellner, Ernest. [Nationalism]”Miroslav In Hroch (ed.). Geertz, Clifford.Geertz, 1973. Gál, Fedor. 1999. “BolFedor. 1999. Gál, rozpad Fairclough, Wodak. Norman, 1997.„Critical A. Analysis“.van Ruth Discourse In Teun Dijk “EthnicityEriksen, Thomas.Woolman In 2005. Nationalism” Spencer, Howard andPhilip þ þ ara, Ján. 1998. í, Oskar. 2005. “Rozd í,Oskar. 2005. and Geopolitics]” InZuzanaPolá and Geopolitics]” 227-236. pp.120- 126.pp.120- Texts theOS Compilation ofMagazine (1997-2006] from Development] theStrategicSocial andEconomic Studies Collection ofAnalytical for Program of aekonomickéhorozvoje program sociálního [The analytických studiíprostrategický z textov dnes. Výbor In and SlovakStereotypes in History Historiography].” Slovak the strategii,212-226. pp. Economic Development] Economic rozvoje [TheCollectionAnalytical StudiesfortheStrategic of Program ofSocialand Sborník analytických studiípro strategický programsociálníhoaekonomického Society]. Great CzechNation:NationalIdentityand the Post-communistof Transformation Rowman & Littlefield, pp. ix. pp. &Littlefield, Rowman dissolution :explainingCzechoslovakia's Irreconcilable differences? and the SlovakIdentity] and the pp. 203–216. [Views onNation andNationalism.Thereader.]. Identity]”. In Miroslav Hroch (ed.). Secondary Schools Research]”. 15. October 2007. Tel 2007. 15. October Research]”. Schools Secondary and on Elementary History Education the Actual of Appearance from the [Information Nationalism. AReader and reader.]. národ anacionalismus. of Czecho-Slovakia (November 1992] 1989-June (November 1989-Jún1992)[The ShareofPost-totalitarianElitesontheDevelopment In Michal Horský (ed.). (ed.) pp. 135-148. (eds.). Discourse asSocial Interaction Nations andNationalism.Reader A Praha: Sociologické nakladatelství. Praha: Sociologické Praha:Sociologické403-417. nakladatesltví, pp. . Praha: Rada . Praha: Nekonven Prosím Stru Prosím The Interpretation ofCultures. The Invention of tradition Malý Č lení státu: Demokracie a geopolitika. [The Breakup: Democracy Demokracie Breakup: [The lení a geopolitika. státu: þ ý þ . Prešov: Vydavatelství Michala Vaška. þ eský asopisu OS 1997-2006 [The Slovak QuestionThe [The Today. OS1997-2006 asopisu . Praha: Rada . Praha: ná politika aSlovenská Politics ná politika identita[Non-conventional SFR nevyhnutný?[Was the ofCSFRUnavoidable?]SFR Breakup þQČ ý . Edinburgh: University Edinburgh pp.149–162.Press, ítanka text ítanka ý Podiel elitnavývoji postotalitných þ [Briefly Please]. [Briefly eské republiky pro sociální strategii, pro pp. a ekonomickou eské republiky lov Č þ k askv ková. Pohledy nanárod anacionalismus. . London: SAGE,pp. 258-284. 53 Ĥ Michael Kraus, Allison K. (eds.). Allison Kraus, Stanger Michael ý . [Views on NationandNationalism.The . [Views eské republiky pro sociální sociální a ekonomickou pro eské republiky Č Slovensko- . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. lý . Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, University Edinburgh Edinburgh: . þ ý eský národ. [The Little Czechandthe Little eský národ.[The London: Fontana. London: . pp.25- Bratislava:27. Oko, eské Bud Praha: Sociologické nakladatesltví, Praha:Sociologické ý þ eské vz . Č jovice: Gallery. Ģ . Bratislava: Kaligram, . Bratislava: ahy v kontexte strednej ahy vkontexte Č jepisu najepisu ZŠa SŠ Slovenská otázka ý . Lanham, Md.: esko-Slovenska ý ítanka text Pohledy na Sborník Nations Ĥ . CEU eTD Collection Petruf, Pavol. 2000. Pietikäinen, Sari. 2003. Pato Názory ob Nedomová, Alena,Nedomová, Tomáš Kostelecký. 1996. Míšková, Alena, Ji Míšková, Mistrík,“Škóti, Erich. 1998. FíniaSlováci [TheScotsmen, The Finns and Slovaks]”.the Miná Miller, David.2000. Miháliková, Silvia. 2005.“Symbolická rovina slovensko- Media projekt2007 Mackenzie, 1948. Compton. Lipták, Leff, Karol Leff, 1997. Skalnik. Kusý, Miroslav. 1997. “Slovenský fenomén [The Slovak Phenomenon]” In Rudolf Chmel Rudolf In Phenomenon]” Slovak [The fenomén “Slovenský 1997. Miroslav. Kusý, Kuras,1999. Benjamin. Ku Kružliak,“Slovenská Imrich. 1997. dilemma [TheSlovak Dilemma]” In RudolfChmel (ed.). þ era, Petr. 1999. „N era, Petr. þ þ ka, Jan. 1992. , Vladimír. 1997. “Tu žije národ [Here Lives the Nation]” In In Rudolf Chmel Rudolf Chmel (ed.). In In Nation]” the [HereLives národ “Tu žije , Vladimír. 1997. Metodické centrum.Metodické Discourse Slovakia have changed in favor ofindependence] Slovakia havechanged [The opinionsconcerningcommon state thesplitof amongCzech Republicand sociální strategii,a ekonomickou 200-211. pp. Sociologický Ústav AV Ústav Sociologický strategic ofsocialandeconomic program development] ekonomického rozvoje identity].” In: S 53. Culture intheMulticultural Europe”]. the1 Identity Creation:Collection from the National andCultural Endof “Slovenskámultikulturnej kulturav Európe”[The seminára z1.mezinárodného identity:Konec národnej zborník a kulturnej utvárania Kaligram, 342-368. Slovenská otázka ve 20. storo Slovenská otázkave20. Czech intheCentralEuropeanContext] Relations Zuzana Polá In aspects)]” selected (the relations Czech and level of Slovak symbolic témy) [The Question inthe20 Colo: Westview Press. Westview Colo: Slovak Question]“ InRudolf Chmel (ed.). Bratislava: Kaligram,460-481. pp. (ed.). a nationalsurvival kit] Slovakia (November 1989-June 1992] Slovakia (November 1989-June 1989-Jún 1992)[The Share ofPost-totalitarian Elites ontheDevelopmentCzecho- of Michal Horský (ed.). Kaligram,482-499. pp. Slovenská otázka ve 20. storo Slovenská otázkave20. Veda, pp.324-330. EuropeanContext] andCzech intheCentral Európy [Slovak Relations ď ubomír. historické 1997. „Niektoré aspekty otázky slovenskej of [Some Aspects the þ anov anov Slovenská otázka ve20.storo Slovenská otázka ý in Discourse & Society, Vol. 14, No. 5, pp. 581-609. R aSRnarozdelenie spolo . 2007. GfK – Median.Projekt Ĝ Co jsouCesi? [What aretheCzechs?]. þ í Rak. 2000. “Národní “Národní a í tradice Rak. 2000. Citizenship andNational Identity. ková. Slovensko [Slovakia in 1989-1998] vrokoch 1989-1998 ý Indigenous Identity in Print: Representations of the SamiinNews inPrint:RepresentationsIndigenous Identity of Č borník analytických studiípro Strategický program sociálního a th kolik paradigmat vývinukolik paradigmat [Few Paradigms of Development]“ In eši na vlásku: p eši navlásku: The Czech Republics: Nationversus andtheSlovak State Century]. Slovensko- Dr Beneš. Podielvývoji postotalitných elitna . Praha: Baronet. . Praha: ý ý eské republikyeské R. þ þ Bratislava: Kaligram, 446-459. í [The Slovak Question inthe20 SlovakQuestion í [The í [The Slovak Question inthe20 SlovakQuestion í [The ý Praha: Vydavatelství Družstevní Práce. Družstevní Praha: Vydavatelství eské vz Ĝ íru þ . Bratislava: pp. Oko, 59-62. 54 þ þ í [The Slovak Question in the 20 Questioninthe Slovak í [The 27. November 1996.Bratislava:pp. 47- EL&T, ného štátusaného zmenili vprospech samostatnosti ka národníhop Ģ . [The collection [The ofanalyticalstudiesthe for ahy v kontexte strednejEurópy[Slovak and vkontexte ahy Národní identita.Working papers Slovenská otázkave20. storo st International Colloquium “The Slovak Colloquium“The International Cambridge: Polity Press. Polity Cambridge: þ eská identita [National tradition [National identita tradition and eská . 2004. IVO, STEM. . Bratislava: Veda,23-49. pp. þ Praha: Panorama. Praha: eských vz Ĝ ežívání [Czechsandbalances: ežívání ý Praha: Rada vlády esko-Slovenska (Novemberesko-Slovenska Ģ th ahov ahov (vybrané aspekty th Century]. Century]. þ í [The Slovak í [The . Bratislava: th Bratislava: Bratislava: Century]. . Boulder, . Prešov: . . Praha: ý R pro CEU eTD Collection Švejnar, Jan. 2000.“Explaining Czechoslovakia’s AssessingDissolution: Economic Tesa Svoboda, Ji Svoboda, Spencer, Philip, Howard Woolman.Spencer, Philip,Howard 2005b.“Introduction”. In Philip, Howard Spencer, Spencer, Philip, Howard Woolman. 2005a. “Good and Bad Nationalism” In Spencer, Philip, Spencer, In andBad Nationalism” Woolman. “Good 2005a. Howard Spencer,Philip, Smith,Anthony. 1991. Smith,Anthony. 1999. Smith,Anthony. 2001. Salazar, Jose,Miguel.“Social National 1998. and Identity InS.Worchel,Identity”. J.F. 1998. Sayer,Derek. Smékal, Vladimír.Pozvání osobnosti.do psychologie 2002. Deborah In “Introduction”. Hamilton. E. Heide Tannen, Deborah Deborah, Schiffrin, Schiffrin, 1994. Deborah. Rychlík,Jan. 1998. Renan, Ernest. 2003. “Co je to národ [What is [Whatnárod nation?]” Hroch,je Miroslav (ed.). a 2003.“Co In Renan, Ernest. to Pynsent, RobertPynsent,B. 1996. Price, Monroe E. 1995. “National and Post-National Identity. The Market for loyalities.” In Pot Pithart, Petr.1999.Pithart, “K Pickering, Michael. 2001. Ĥþ Ĝ , Jan. 1995. ek, Martin. 1999. Chudoba a nerovnost p nerovnost ek, Martin.Chudoba a 1999. Slovakia Plus. (eds.). In Breakup” the before andafter Performance Md.: Rowman & pp.183-198. Littlefield, June 1992] Post-totalitarianCzecho-Slovakia on the (Novemberof Elites Development of 1989- postotalitných elitnavývoji transformation of post-communistcountries]” In Michal Horský (ed.). University Press, pp.1-19. Woolman (eds.). University Press, pp.197-217. Howard WoolmanHoward (eds.). and behavior]. cognition of Brno: Mirror Barristerin the Man The Principal. Psychology. Personal into Invitation [The jednání Morales, D. Paez, J.C. Deschamps (Eds.). Press. Century. 2 vols.]. Analysis (eds.). Hamilton E. Heidi Tannen, Deborah Schiffrin, 123. reader.]. na národanacionalismus. 40-80. s.n. Available from: . inequality ofopportunities in theCzechRepublic] ý 1989- pp. 10-15. 1989-June 1992] (November the developmentofCzecho-Slovakia esko-Slovenska (November 1989-Jún 1992) [The share of post-totalitarian eliteson post-totalitarian shareof (November1989-Jún1992)[The esko-Slovenska Television: ThePublicSphere and NationalIdentity. Ĝ þ í.“Otázky transformace 1999. postkomunistických Question zemí [The of erven 1992]” InMichal Horský (ed.). Irreconcilable differences? :explainingCzechoslovakia's dissolution Irreconcilable differences? . Malden, Mass:Blackwell pp.1-10. Publishers, Praha: Sociologické24-35. nakladatesltví, pp. . Bratislava: pp. Oko, 37-47. Jsme autentickí dedi The coastsof Bohemia:aCzech history ý eši a Slováci ve 20. Století. The Czechs and the Slovaks inthe20th TheCzechsandtheSlovaks 20.Století. eši aSlovácive NationalIdentity. Nationalism Ĝ Myth andMemories ofthe Nation. ižovatky ižovatky na cest Praha: Ústav T.G. Masaryka. Pátraní poidentit Approaches to discourse Stereotyping. ThePolitics ofRepresentation Nations A Reader and Nationalism. Nations and Nationalism. A Reader Nations and Nationalism.A . Oxford: Oxford University Press. ý ý esko-Slovenska (November 1989-Jún 1992) [The Share (November 1989-Jún1992)[The esko-Slovenska ítanka text Č London: Penguin Books, Reno. þ od od ia [Wearetheauthentic inheritors] Č . [QuestionsofIdentity]. 55 ý eskoslovenska k Ĝ Ĥ íležitostí v íležitostí . Oxford: Blackwell. . [Viewsnation andnationalism.The on Social Identity. Podiel postotalitných elitnavývoji Michael Kraus, Allison K.Allison Kraus, Stanger Michael Oxford: Oxford University Press. . ý Princeton: Princeton University Princeton Princeton: [online]02. 2008]. 22. [cit. eské republice. eské Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. The Handbook of Discourse The Handbookof ý ý lov esku (listopad a Slovensku London:SAGE,pp. 114- . Edinburgh: Edinburgh Jino Č . Edinburgh: Edinburgh . New York: Palgrave. k v zrcadle v v zrcadle k þ any: H&H. any: . Bratislava: Oko, [Poverty and [Poverty . Bratislava: . Lanham, Pohledy Č domí a domí Podiel CEU eTD Collection Trapl, Miloslav. 1962. Lipták, L’ubomír.1992. Anna,Ková Frišová, Irena.1971. ý ý ý Czechoslovakia Analyzed educational materials: Žatkuliak Jozef. 2005. „MedzníkyŽatkuliak usporiadania asúvislosti 2005. Jozef. spolo Zemko, Milan. 1999. “NezadržiteMilan.Zemko, 1999. Zajac, Peter. 2004. “Naše identity [Our Identities]” In Fedor Gál, Peter Zajac. 1+1. Bratislava: Zajac, Peter. 1999.“DvaZajac, Peter. Aspects of aspekty rozdelenia [Two Breakup].”In the Michal al.Wodak, Ruth et 1999. Van Dijk, Teun. A. 1997. “Discourse as Interaction in Society.” In Teun A. van Dijk (ed.) 7Ĝ Tilly, 1996.“Citizenship, Charles. Identity Social and History.”Charles Tilly In (ed.). apek, Vratislav. 1988. apek, Vratislav. 1987. apek, Vratislav. 1984. apek, Vratislav. eštík, Dušan. 1999. 89)]. SPN. [Experimental Historical Textbook for 3 HistoricalTextbookfor [Experimental Schools ]. SPN. Apprentice Institutions]. odborných u Xþ Veda, pp.149-179. EuropeanContext] andCzech intheCentral Európy [Slovak Relations ý (ed.). InMichal Horský State]” of Czecho-Slovak pp. 67-71. 1989-June 1992] the DevelopmentofCzecho-Slovakia(November and Czech Nation]“ In Polá Zuzana In Czech andNation]“ þ Slovakia (November 1989-June 1992] Slovakia (November 1989-June Post-totalitarian ShareElitesCzecho- Jún 1992)[The of on theDevelopmentof Petrus, pp.78-81. Horský Horský (ed.). Edinburgh University Press. Discourse as Social Interaction The texts from 1991_1998]. The texts from andTruthsinTransformation. Nation, State,History Czechs.1991-1998 [The Their of of Cambridge,1-18. pp. Citizenship, IdentityandSocial History. eského národa [The Milestones and the Context of the Common State of the Slovak the of State Common the of Context the and Milestones [The národa eského esko-Slovenska (November 1989-Jún1992)[TheShareofPost-totalitarianEliteson iliš Bratislava: SPN. Ģ þ [HistoryforTwo andThreeYears ApprenticePrograms]. ová. 1981. Bratislava: SPN. þ iliš Dejepis pre 9.ro Dejepis pre Podiel postotalitnýchelitnavývoji 'Č ý Dejepis pre dvojro Ģ Dejepis pre2.ro 'Č eši. Jejich národ, stát, d eši. Jejichnárod, 8þ [History Book for SpecializedSecondarySchoolsand [HistoryBookfor jepis prodevátýro Dejepis experimentálný u Dejepis experimentálný jiny 19.a20. století [History ofthe19 ebné texty z dejepisu (1945-89)[Historical StudyingTexts(1945- The Discursive ConstructionNational identity of Bratislava: SPN. Đ ný zánik Brno: Dopln . London: SAGE,pp. 1-37. þ ník osobitných škôl [History for 9 škôl[History for ník osobitných þ ník stredných odbornýchškôla1.ro ník stredných þ þ né atrojro ková. þ þ . Bratislava: pp. Oko, 63-66. esko-slovenského štátu [TheInevitable Breakup štátu esko-slovenského ník [Historyforthe9 56 Cambridge: Press Syndicate of the University Č k. rd Č Slovensko- Grade ofGrammar School] jiny a pravdy v transformaci. Textyzlet jiny apravdyvtransformaci. þ þ né u ebný text pre 3. ro pre3. ebný text ý Podiel postotalitných elitna vývoji þ esko-Slovenska (November 1989- (November esko-Slovenska ebné oborystrednýchodborných ý eské vz th th þ and20 Grade]. ného štátu slovenskéhoného a štátu Ģ ahy v kontexte strednej ahy vkontexte Bratislava: SPN. Bratislava: th th . Bratislava: Oko, GradeofSpecial Century]. Praha: SPN. þ þ ník gymnazia ník ník stredných ník . Edinburgh: . Bratislava: . Bratislava: Praha: CEU eTD Collection Vošáhlíková, Pavla.1996. Vošáhlíková, Sochrová, Marie.Sochrová, 1999. Pe Lu Jožák, Ji ý The Czech Republic Letz, Robert, Anna 1997. Robert, Bocková. Letz, Ková 2006. Václav. Štefanský, Michal, Štefanský, Vladimír, Vavrinský, Eva, Chylová, Chylová, Eva, Martuliak, Pavol, Chromeková, Valéria, Variuský Vladimír, Folkman, Štefan. Folkman, Vladimír, Variuský Valéria, Chromeková, Pavol, Martuliak, Chylová, Eva, Bartlová, Alena, Letz, Róbert. 2005. Slovakia apka, František. 2004. apka, František. þ Ė enka, Marek et al. Mareket enka, 1999. ák, Petr, Pe Petr, ák, þ , Dušan, Lipták L’ubomír.1994. , Dušan, Lipták Praha: SPL. Volume 1] of ModernTimes,Volume 2] základných škol[Slovakia inthe20 základných škol[Slovakia Elementary Schools]. Elementary History for HighSchools].History for Xþ pro školysvetovej odborné strednéodborné vojny kdnešku.Dejepis astredné 1939]. 2003. and Specialized Apprentice Institutions]. for the 3 Ĝ í. 1995. ilištia[From WWII until Today. History Book for SpecializedSecondary Book History Schools for until Today. WWII ilištia[From Bratislova: Orbis Pictus Istropolitana. Pictus Orbis Bratislova: Dejepis 3. Slovensko asvet vrokoch 1844-1939[History 3.Slovakia in1844- þ rd enka, Marek, Augusta, Pavel.2000. Augusta, enka,Marek, Gradeof Grammar Schools. NationalHistory] 'Č . Praha: SPL-Práce-Albra. . Praha: jepis. Novádoba4. díl.[History. TheNew Volume 4].Age, 'Č 'Č jepis vKostce II [History Snapshot II]. jepis 9 [History 9] 'Č Bratislava: SPN. jepis. Novádoba [History.2. díl TheNew Volume 2]. Age, 'Č Bratislava: SPN. jiny moderní doby Díl 1[The History of ModernTimes, jiny modernídobyDíl1[The . Praha: SPL-Práce-Albra. Dejepis ro pre 3. Kapitoly z dejín prestredné školy[TheChapters from Slovenskove 20.storo th . Praha: Scientia. 57 Century.HistoryBookforthe 8 Bratislava: OrbisPictus Istropolitana. 'Č þ ník gymnázií. NárodnéDejiny[History jiny moderní doby.Díl 2[The History . Bratislava: SPN. Havlí þ í. Dejepis pre8. ro í. Dejepis þNĤ v Fragment. Brod: Praha: Práce. th Gradeof Od 2. Od þ ník