Intellectuals and Public Discourse

CEU eTD Collection

Talking aboutLiteratureinSocialistRomania Intellectuals andPublicDiscourse: In partialfulfillment oftherequirements forthedegreeof Second Reader:ProfessorBalázsTrencsényi Supervisor: ProfessorConstantinIordachi Central EuropeanUniversity History Department Budapest, Hungary Mihai-Dan Cîrjan Master ofArts Submitted to 2011 By

CEU eTD Collection

the CentralEuropeanLibrary.Detailsmay beobtai Copyright inthetextofthisthesisrestswithth a partofanysuchcopiesmade. Furthercopies part, may bemade onlyinaccordance withthe not bemade withoutthewritt e Author.Copiesbyanypr madeinaccordancewithsuchinstructionsmay i

instructions given bytheAuthorandlodgedin en permission oftheAuthor. ned from thelibrarian. ocess, eitherinfullor Thispagemustform CEU eTD Collection public discourse of thecultural field. of statestructures withintheliteraryworld,th within theconfinesof this scenariotheboundariesbetween intelligentsia andof the bureaucratic elite engaged inmultiple negotiations for state resources. In within thestate’sinstitutions made theliterary intelligentsia intheadministrative system andthestructure of informal networksdeveloped the effectsofstate’sinstitutionalisationcult discursive structuresoftheliteraryfield.The It doesthis byfollowing thetrajectory of two the structureofRomanianliteraryfielddur This thesisisacontributiontothestudyofintell Abstract state administration. Startingfrom this thetwoelites,farfrombeing two casestudies providetheopportunitytodiscuss ing andaftertheliberalisation periodofthe1960s. e paperfurther analyses itsconsequences onthe ii ectuals understatesocialism. Itaims toanalyse field acomplexsitewheremembers of the Romanian writers inside theinstitutional and ure. Thethesis claims that theco-option ofthe reconsiderationoftheimportance clear cut,constantlyshifted CEU eTD Collection Bibliography Conclusion 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. Introduction

2. 1. 5.2. 5.1. 4.2. 4.1. 3.3. 3.2. 3.1. 2.2. 2.1. 1.4. 1.3. 1.2. 1.1.

1.2. 1.1. ImaginingtheLiteraturePublic Who istheReader? withintheLiteraryPublicSphere-TalkingaboutRealism Negotiations Informal NetworksofPower:CulturalandAdministrativeElites? Dramatis Personae Theoretical Guidelines

Table ofContents Secondary Literature Primary Sources

The TwoPublics Closer totheMasses:RealismanditsDangers Threading onMiddleGround Context andDebates:RedefiningRealism Some Conclusions AdministrativeEliteswithinStateInstitutions Intellectual and InformalNetworking With aLittleHelpfrommyFriends:TheEditorialSystemand Presenting theActors Presenting theScene A CaseStudy? Intellectuals andPublicDiscourse Drawing uptheBorders Intellectuals: YetAgain? ...... 101 ...... Books Magazines Newspapers, 104 ...... 1 ...... 106 ...... 28 ...... 21 ...... 104 ...... 93 ...... 8 ...... 56 ...... 108 ...... 28 ...... 31 ...... 12 ...... 9 ...... 104 ...... 71 ...... 18 iii ...... 63 ...... 82 ...... 82 ...... 35 ...... 49 ...... 61 .....36

CEU eTD Collection 2 1 handed downtousonlythroughtherecollections to Ceau transcript ofthemeeting. Infact,Predaisnotevenmentioned asbei Hisstaunch reactionto theJulyTheses,however,wasneverrecorded intheofficial Preda’s apprehensions. during the1960s,wasthreatening tohaunt,on ideological pressurewhichtheyinitiatedwas Romania’s liberalisationperiodofthe1960s.One result of theJulyTheses andtheincreased “July Theses”,anditwasCeau program referredtoherecame tobeknown,incontrastwiththelengthyofficialtitle,1971 well asoftheMarxist-Leninisteducation practice theprogram theimprovement concerning of 1971. Thegatheringwas meant to“examine the meeting between theRomanian leaderandthe one ofthemosthighlyregarded to theSecretary General of theRo Allegedly,thisstatement, with “Ifyoureintroducesocialistrealism, Introduction Mali LiviuMali ţ a, Ceau ş escu’s dialogue withtheRomanian ţ a, ş Ceau escu, escu critic literar [Ceau şescu criticliterar 67. 67.

Romanian writers ofthe20 ş manian CommunistParty,NicolaeCeau escu’s discoursewhichmarked andannouncedtheendof itsthreateningdedicationto escu Literary Critic,] Literary șescu Iam readyto commit suicide.” of allPartymembers andofallworkers.” members oftheWriters’ UniononSeptember 21, literati. Hisdetermined, unwaveringretortwas 1 that theghostofsocialistrealism, abandoned ce again, Romanian literature; henceMarin way inwhichtheWrite of some oftheother thepoliticaland ideo (Bucure th century. It was occasioned by a century.Itwasoccasionedbya ti: Vremea, 2007), 22. 22. şti: Vremea, 2007), aesthetic values,wasaddressed ng amongsttheparticipants 1 ş writers witnessingthe

escu, byMarinPreda, rs’ Unionputsinto logical activity, as logical activity,as 2 The CEU eTD Collection Ceau 2 1 in themeeting betweenNicolaeCeau change sidesandmake compromises, concessions: pressure the intellectuals or, asinmorepessimis course, thepowerbalancebetween veracity oftheargument between the intellectual community andth interaction between twosocial gr image andhisdirectdialoguewith Romanian intelligentsia’s resistance orlack of resistance to thesocialist regime. Thisistheperception whichaccompanie realism or,onthecontrary,react the confrontation,intellectual could either who theintellectualwasand,similarly, onewoul contrary, resist,protest,ordi which theintellectual communitycouldreact intellectuals’ connection the intellectuals andthe state advantage ofsynthesisingsome Asitis,however,andthroughthelensof literary world. historic meeting Veche Themost recentdebate was occasio P Adrian escu, şescu, 347 (2010). (2010). 347 ă 22. unescu and MirceaIorgulescu are two of the 1 and,assuch,ithasalreadybecome pa a with thestateand ssent inaquiteconcretemanner. Insuchasceneonewould know

ned by the visit of the Romanianvisit of ned bythe ofthecommon perceptionscon in Preda’sresolutemanner. oups couldbeimagined. Within thisscenario thelimits between in SocialistRomania. The most e communistelitearenotanobj theintellectualspr MarinPreda andNicolaeCeau thetwogroupswasnevereven ş escu andthewriters,itbecomes easytounderstandwho meekly acceptthe new imposition ofsocialist 2 , make concessions, compromises or,onthe thecommunist powerwasadirectdialoguein tic scenarios, the intellectuals could devilishly d knowwhothecommunistpoliticianwas.In d mostofthepost-1989debatesabout the the intellectuals’folklo la trahisondesclercs. witnesses whorememberMali Preda’s remark; ovided asimple patt -born German novelistHertaMüller; rt ofthefolkloreRomanian cerning therelationshipbetween intriguing one isthat the andthepoliticalelitecould ş ect of dispute,just like the escu isnotquestioned.Of Nevertheless, just like ern throughwhichthe re, thescenehas 2 Ceau Dilema Dilema ş escu’s ţ a, a, CEU eTD Collection were Tudor only afterreachingtheageof style, whoknew eachother and began publishi empirical guidesintotheliteraryworld. now calledthe socialisation intothecultural fi Inordertoframe my Iprovidean analysis was possible. intervening withintheculturalfi economic resources.Consequently,thestatewa embeddedwithin administrative institutions wh Thestateadministration ofculturemeantthat linkages. the culturalelitew boundaries ofstateadministration.Itisaninstitutionalfluidityoccasioned bytheco-optionof scenario the limits between thetwoelites,far from while acting within acommon milieu established bycultural state institutions. Thus, inthis complex process ofnegotia intellectuals andstateinstitutions. Icontend that thisrelationship should beperceived asa InwhatfollowsItrytopresentadiffere and whospeaksonbehalfoftheculturalfield. represents thePowerandwhorepresents thein The Târgovi Ţ opa, PetruCre Târgovi ş te School ithin theadministrative bodyandthe ș te School,MirceaHoriaSimionescu andRaduPetrescu,whoserveme as tion carriedbymembers oftheintel ţ ia, CostacheOl was aconvenientumbrella term for 40. BesidesSimionescu and Petres eld. Practically,Ichoseascase eld, butaninstitutionalframework inandthroughwhichculture ă reanu, andAlexandruGeorge. Myfocusonthese 3 ng roughly atthesame period, after1968,and tellectual community, who nt perspectiveupontherelationshipbetween anthropologicaldepic ich provided them withmanagement and s notsomuch aforeign,externalforce the socialpracticesofculturalfieldwere beingclearcut,consta perpetuation of influent informal perpetuation ofinfluentinformal studies twomembers ofwhatis ligentsia andappa a setofwriterswithsimilar cu, other important members tion oftheprocess ntly shift within the represents the state state the represents ratchiks alike, CEU eTD Collection ofthepoliticalandth between variousmembers plan, Ianalyse howtheaccesstostateresources, publishing industryandtheirattempts tosecure Socialist Romania. ByfollowingM.H.Simione informal structuresof theliterary field, in actors involvedinmy analysis.Thethirdchapter Thesecondchapteroffersth my thesis. that astudyofintellect activities inaspecificsocial context. Thechapte structural modelwhichinsteadof functionalist vs.structuraldefi literature about intellectuals und theoretical presuppositionswhich Tothesepurpose,Idividemy argument social context,inmy casethecultural fieldofsocialistRomania. despite itsempiricallynarrowfocus,information aboutthemacro-structural factorsmouldinga andRaduhow ananalysisoftheliterarytrajectoryM.H.Simionescu Petrescucanyield, state socialism. UsingMichaelBurawoy’sconc production, allowsme betterassesthesocialand to literary debatesofthetime, whilebeingneverthele for theRomanian cultureoftheperiod.Thefact writers springs from their marginal status inthe literary field, rather than their representativity uals canstillprovide nitions oftheintellectuals.FollowingKatherineVerdery,Iusea providingastrictde er statesocialism bypicking underlie my study.HereIattemp e readerashortdepictionof teractions which made upthestatusof and detailsthemethodologi 4 themselves asteadyposition within theeditorial eptualisation oftheextendedcasestudyIshow r alsopointsoutsome of scu and Radu Petrescu’s sinuous paths into the scu andRaduPetrescu’ssinuouspathsintothe especially publishing facilities, wasnegotiated in fivechapters.Thefirstonedescribesthe focuses ontheinterac e culturalelitethrough formal andinformal ss included withinthe statesystem of cultural that theywereneverthemain actorsinthe discursive practicesof finition focusesmoreontheintellectuals’ the historicbackgroundand sides inthedebatebetween t tofindmy wayinthevast tion betweenformal and thetheoretical insights cal choicesstructuring cultural agentswithin writer in CEU eTD Collection definition inside the public sphere. Thus,variouscultural actors sought toprovide theirown notion ofrealism, thisdiscou despite the Party’s attempts to which re-appearedattheendof1960sandcon their relation withthepolitical field. Mostof media asconstituting apublicsphereinwhichth Owing toitsdiscursiveautonomy, Iconsiderth and thewayinwhichdiscussionsaboutliter the fourthandfifthchapterstrytopointout thestatusofintellectuals’publicdiscourse Ifthethirdchapterde networks inwhichaccess topow dividing the Centreand theintellectuals, there redistribution, adduptotheimage of aculturalfield inwhich,instead of thestraight lines administrative elite,aswell thenetworks official and intellectuals werenot very easy todraw. Theco-optionof theintellectuals withinthe occupied officesinthoseinstitutionswhichregul two camps debating and negotiating the limits of structured the literaryworldwas not necessarilyonebetween state thus, itfunctionedasasecondmodel ofresourcedi double function:ofundermining th how thestructureofinformal relationshipswhic means. Furthermore, inlinewith als withthesocialnetworksand rse wasconstantlyundermined imposeanofficialdiscourse some ofthestudies er wasunevenlydistributed. e statestructureswhilesust my analysisfocusesonthedebatesabout realism e networkofliterarymagazines, booksandother 5 h made up the literarycultureofperiodhada was acomplex systems offormal andinformal e intellectuals couldne ature andtheroleofwriterwere framed. ated the literaryfield, thelinesbetween state tinued until1989.Partoftheargument isthat of informal relations regulating official ofinformal relationsregulatingofficial stribution. Ialsoshow literary creation.As th concerninginformaleconomy, Itrytoshow structures ofresourcedistribution, about literature focusing onthe by its reinterpretation and re- aining them neverthelessand, officials andwriters, withthe gotiate theirpositionand howtheconflictwhich e writers themselves CEU eTD Collection 1 state institutional structures, together withtheformal andinformal practicestheyfostered,were interpreted theiractionsandtheirrelationshipwiththosesurroundi socialist system, theculturalfield, socialist system issignificant. structural modelinwhichnotthespecifictraits Torpey’s classification aboutintelligentsia studi educational level,theaccessto try todrawuptheprofileofa Unlikemost of thestudiesconcerning intellectua intellectuals’ publicdiscourse. social contextofstateformal institutionsan tendencies withintheliterary field, relate thetw literature. AttheendoffifthchapterItry realist literature meant, forinst on theconstantreinforcement of appropriations. Atthesame time andinthesame the Party’sattempts atcentralisingmeaning c chapter 3,theliteraryfield’spubl Similarly to thenegotiation strategies characterising theinformal networksdescribed in cultural capital. interpretation ofwhatrealism wasand,bydoing Universityof Minnesota, 1995),1-5. JohnTorpey, Intellectuals, Socialism, and Dissent: the East German Opposition and Its Legacy Its and Opposition German East the Dissent: and Socialism, Intellectuals,

ance, implied that onehadtofirs 1 social stratum byfocusingonvari Mypurposewillbethatofdescribingarealm ofthestate resourcesorthepr the officiallanguage.Providingdifferentdefinitionsofwhata ic spherewasoneof bypayingdueattentiontothe d informal practicesinfluencedand shapedthe to provideanexplanationforthesecontradictory 6 ould beconstantlysubverted throughinventive o stringsofmyargume contradictorymove, thissubversionwasbased but thefunction of the intellectual eliteinthe es, this paperwillverymuch resemble a this, to successfully support their claims to ivileges enjoyedby ls andstatesocialism, thisthesis willnot constant debateanddiscussioninwhich t accepttheprimacy ofarealist way in whichthesocial actors ous characteristic suchasthe ng them. Inthissense,the nt andexplainhowthe this group.Following , (Minneapolis: , (Minneapolis: CEU eTD Collection and reshapedthrough just oneofthecontextswhich,byinfluencing their reactions. 7 actions of itscitizens, were constantly shaped CEU eTD Collection this willbebutamanner oftheoretically groundingmy ownanalyticalframework. the historicalorsociologicalwo position withinthesocial space. Far from beingali does notaimatprovidingadefinitionof“the in claim thatastructural approachismuchmore us various “intellectuals’ theories” intofunctional and own theoreticalapproachtothe “space oflegitimation.” Thepurposeofthefollowi any discussionaboutstatesocialistsystems by focusing onwhatKatherineVerderycalledthe asarelevantandprivilegedsiteofinquiry in chapter Iwilltrytoexplainwhyconsiderthetopic analysis, namelyaboutintellectuals thediscussions Inordertodo thatIwillsetupthetheoretica consider thiscase-studyausefulinstrument. and thusmake clearthetheoreticalpurposestowa chapter istosetsome considerably marginal role withinthe Romanian 1 documents ragingfrom birthcertificatestoSecuritate almost onehundred books,hundredsofarticlesby numerous, even ifoneonlytakesintoaccount small groupof writersfrom SocialistRomania, th Althoughthescopeofmyanalysismay seem em 1. As one may assume, notall of them areavailable.

Theoretical Guidelines lines ofinquirythroughwhichImight

study ofintellectualsbyusingJ rks aboutintellectualsand/orin the textualmaterial produced/occasionedbythem: 8 literary culture of thattime. Thepurposeof this rds whichIwanttouseitandthereasonswhy l contextinwhichIwouldliketointegratemy eful forahistorical anal tellectual” butatdefininganactivityanda structural. Iwillpick sidesinthis debateand ng sub-chapterwillbethatofdescribing my terature reviewandevenless so asurveyof instatesocialism. Inthefirstpartof e researchpossibilitiesitoffersarevery pirically narrow,asit or aboutthem, thousandsofofficial files, order thisimmensetextualmaterial ohn C. Torpey’s classification of ohn C.Torpey’s 1 andthisregard telligentsia inEasternEurope, ysis, especially asit limits itself toa less of their

CEU eTD Collection 3 2 1 intellectual instatesocialism is surveillancenetwork. system andits Linderberger remarks, thisiseven truerintheca Thetextualmass producedoroc make theconnectionclearer. that my argument wouldsometimes followbothdirections,althoughattheendIwillattempt to As onemay imagine, thislatterquestionofrese Clifford Geertz’s thick description for reasons th method and anthropology, Lüdtke’s theoreticalco purpose, Iwillmake useofMichaelBurawoy’s about generalstructuresdetermining thepositionof can overcome theempirically narrowfocusmen Inthe lastpart of thischapter citizens areindividualised,monitored, states aremodernexactlyth especially by MirceaHoriaSimionescu andRaduPetrescu isnotsomethingunusual.Modern Jarausch (New York: Berghahn, 1999), 134-135 and and 134-135 Berghahn, 1999), York: (New Jarausch Alltagsgeschichte. been the usual example at handin explaining the nexus anthropology-historymicrohistory in or in History Thomas Lindenberger, “Creating biographique,” “L'illusion PierreBourdieu, "Local Knowle SeeforinstanceAlettaBiersack, 1.1. , ed. Lynn Hunt (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1989), 72-96. Geertz’s methodologicalmodel has

Intellectuals: YetAgain?

ntribution. Unlikeearlier 1 Ithinkthat

rough theircapacitytoprodu State SocialistGovernance,” in boththelargeramount of 3 Inthisregard, whatcharacterisesthespecialposition ofthe I willexplainhowacase-study suchas Actes dela recherche en sciences sociales the extended-casemethod canbe casioned bythemembers ofthe disciplined andrecognised ascitizens, dge, Local History: G History: Local dge, passim. 9 at IsharewithM.Bura arch designiscloselyconnectedtothefirstso se ofstatesocialism with tioned earlierandprovid attempts atrapprochem concept ofextended-casemethod andofAlf intellectualsinasocialistsystem. Tothis Dictatorship as Experience, ce documents throughwhichtheir eertz andBeyond", in ficial papersproducedabout muchmore fruitfulthan 62.1 (1986): 71. 71. (1986): 62.1 woy toacertainextent. Târgovi ent betweenhistorical e relevantknowledge itsoverly centralised Târgovi 2 andasThomas The New Cultural Cultural New The ş te ed. Konrad H. Konrad ed.

School ş te School and

CEU eTD Collection (Berkeley: University of California, 1991), 88. 1991), California, of University (Berkeley: paper;see his book 3 2 1 system, butalsoinrelation tothe “West:” the a One of theresultsof this socialposition isvi attempt tocentralise social meaning: claims toeconomic andsocialcontrol as much as either intheir roleaspropagandists orintheirro knowledge andtheircontrolofsymbolicmeans State’s policiesand through itsclaims torationalredi important in acentralisedsystem suchasthatof determine andimpose whatsocialvaluesareto legitimation:” throughtheknowledg specific socialspacethattheyoccupy,whatthe American anthropologistcallsthe“spaceof FollowingKatherine Verdery,Isee theimportan describes arelationship(State-intelle statement, as trite asitmight seem,shoulddire the intellectualwritesand,someth which parallelstheofficialdiscour him/her Katherine Verdery, The Idem . Securitate resources areallocated andgoalsset. easily contest,havingthemeans topositalternative values thatmight influence how always right"tosee,intheirmost blatant One needscarcely look furtherthan thesloga 1 and the factthat,unlike theaveragecitizen,s/ file of Dorin Tudoran, an important Romanian writer and dissident, contained 10,000 sheets of Eu, fiul lor [I, their son] [I,their son] lor fiul Eu, National Ideology under Socialism: Identity and Cultural Politics inCeaus Politics Cultural and Identity under Socialism: Ideology National their “rationality.”

stribution ofwealth,astheinte ing atleastasimportant, hepubl se abouthimself/herself: bluntly ctual) anditprovi e monopoly whichtheyenjoy,the (Ia

şi: Polirom, 2010), 5. 2 Consequently,theiraccess to specialised forms of 3

10 ccess tosymbolic resources statesocialism, wherethestatelegitimised itself sible not onlywithinthe limits of thesocialist bepursuedandhow.Thisbecomesextremely le asdissidents: theycanreinforcetheregime’s they can contest them, challenging theParty’s form,knowledge claims thatintellectualscan makes intellectualsessentialfortheregime, ct thehistorian’sinterestforthistopic:it ns "Thepartyknowsbest"andis des thesources. ce of intellectuals as he isalso able to llectual couldalwa ishes. Ithinkth put,justlikestateofficials, intellectuals areableto create abodyoftexts thatthe intellectuals springingfrom the ys contestthe at this double at thisdouble escu's Romania ̧escu's

CEU eTD Collection Jovanovich, 1979). 1979). Jovanovich, the onethatSzelényiandKonrad Consequently,although itisverydifficultto 3 2 1 counter-act totheCentre’ssymbolic violence: tried todoso.Moreover,thisope or nottomonopolise therealm ofsocialmeanings Centre andtheintellectualstookplaceraises governance. Thecentralityofthespace oflegitim negotiations canhelp reason behindthischoiceisth members oftheintelligentsia: socialism” replicatestheinterestthatsoci Inthissensetherathercap through itsunexpectedresultstriggeredth exercised itscontrol,butacon rapport totheCentrewasnotjust Securitate in 1970sand1980sRomania couldshieldthem enjoyed allowedthemtogather international supportfortheir 2005), 344 and 344 2005), Romania] Modern in Communism,” in important question: why was the regime so much interested in its intellectuals? in itsintellectuals? why was the interested regime much question: so important but raisesacommon view, that intervention Kotkin’s Ithink his espousing necessary toit. Without attention importance; the intellectual dissidence became dissidence only at the moment when the regime to decided pay otherwise their marginal escalated actually of intellectuals small regime’s casethat groups inthese the the interest be In a roundtable debate held in Budapest, on 27 May 2010, Stephen Kotkin expressed his opinion that it might well well itmight that his opinion expressed Kotkin Stephen May 2010, on 27 in Budapest, held debate a In roundtable IvánSzelényi a AMicro Pers Dissent: Facesof “Seven Petrescu, Cristina . 1

passim. nd György Konrad, Cultur , eds. Alexandru Zub and Adrian Cioflânc ă politic in discerning moreclearly some ofthe ă

i politici culturale şi politici

tinuous, evenifunbalanced,pro 3 at theintellectuals this thesiswillalsofollow on The Intellectuals on the Road to Class Power Class to Road onthe Intellectuals The amono-directionalrelationship discerned inthecaseofHungary, acious literatureon ns thequestion ofwhetherthesocial agents wereable to e constantattentionofthestate.

în România modern alist stateitselfbequeatheduponitsown citizens, 11 question ofwhethertheCentrewasindeedable pective on the Study of the Political (Sub)Cultures the(Sub)Cultures the under Political on Study of pective whodidvarioussocialactors,suchasthe ’ awkwardpositionderivingfrom continuous andwhatwerethestrategiesthroughwhichit discuss aboutanewclassprojectsimilar to ation inwhichtheinteractionbetween the ă (Ia from thearbitraryactionsofstate i: Editura Universit şi: Editura the topicof“inte specificities ofthesocialistmode of ă cause, asupportwhichespecially [Political Culture and Cultural Politics Politics Cultural Culture and [Political cess ofnegotiationwhichexactly through whichthePartysimply the authorities’ footsteps. The 2 the Romanian intellectuals’ (NewYork:HarcourtBrace ăţ ii “Alexandru Ioan Cuza”, llectuals understate CEU eTD Collection 1 Seymour M.Lipset’sclassicalcontributiontothe topic, whileas representative forthesecondhe intellectual anintellectual at a given time andspace second framework ismuchmore interestedin say thatwhilethefirst approachtriestoanswerthequestion “whoaretheintellectuals?” the his/her functionwithinthesocialsystem inwh structural position of theintellectual insi terms oftheircharacteristicoccupationandtrai study ofthissocialgroup. C. Torpeydistinguishesbetweenwhathecallsth Inthetheoreticalcontributionprecedinghis practices. standardize thewriters’publicdiscourse, thespace oflegitimati about realist literaturewas negotiatedbythewriter possible answers to these questi ons: Iwilltrytoshowhowth response of thepopulation.Infourthand which onecandiscerntherelationshipbetweenth state socialism,” regardlessofitshackneyedcharacter,canindeed Târgovi Torpey, 1.2. ş

Drawing uptheBorders Intellectuals, Socialism, Dissent and Socialism, Intellectuals, te writers,respondtotheoffici 1 While thefirst theoretical perspective defines the intellectual(s) in

, 2-3. , 2-3. al power? Inthis al power? de aspecificsociety,his/herroleor( ich s/heisimmersed. alittle,onemay Simplifying 12 ning, thesecondismuch more interestedinthe e functionalandthestruct “whatarethoseactivi discussion ofEast-German intellectuals,John s themselves andhow,despitetheattempts to ?” Torpey’s example forthe first approach is fifth chaptersIwillpointoutsome ofthe e officialdiscourseof light, thetopicof e Party’shegemonic discourse on alloweddifferentliterary be averyfertil ties whichmake an theCentre and the ural approach inthe “intellectuals under e soilthrough pace Torpey) CEU eTD Collection 3 2 1 virtue offocusingonintellectual and acertain relation or, inTorpey’s terms, asp characteristics toaspecificgroupof the classificatory tendencies specific tothe form Thesecondtypeoftheories, fulfils withinaspecificsocialsystem,seems much These areonlysomequestionwhichthefirs ofthe members of theintelligentsia, also have political are partofaprofession specific traitsthatmight beusefulinananalysis. which thesespecificgroupsareid Torpey pointsout,suchamethodology isalways members from variouspointsofviews:social category of intellectuals onlytodescribe, after thisfirst step, thespecific characteristics of these methodology whichstartsbyidentifying thegroupsof propositions, Iperceivethefirstsetoftheoriesasimplyinganempirically grounded classification oftheintellectuals’ definitions picks upKatherineVerdery’s1991bookonRomanian intellectuals. (London: Verso, 1998), 46-85. 1998), Verso, (London: Europe Central in Post-communist EliteStruggles and Class Formation Capitalists: without Capitalism Making insocialistHungarys thedissensions between twogroups the and relationship the of evaluation an for humanist intellectuals; the with comparison in position social former wasalways integrated ina rather stable system Torpey, subjectivities”. human forming means the thro thereby constituting in discourses, transmitting whose claim at is least partially acknowledge by others” and as“occupants of asite that is privileged in forming and The problem of technical intelligentsia vs. humanist intelligentsia was always a touchy issue in this regard, as the asthe regard, this in wasalways issue atouchy intelligentsia vs. humanist intelligentsia technical problemof The Torpey, He quotes her ideathatintellectual should denote “anyon Intellectuals, Socialism, and Dissent, Dissent, and Socialism, Intellectuals, nd ifso,which profession?

Intellectuals, Socialism, and Dissent, entified atthebeginning,letalon activity individualsortoan by pointingoutthest 3. over thesocialattributesofpersonswhocarry it of economicproduction and, consequently, it held adifferent 13 ecific activity: “Thisstru er; itdoes not necessarilyassign aspecific setof status, income, classpos functions, aretheyintell e whose social practice invokes e whosesocialpractice and despitehisrather 2 t setoftheoretical toolsleavesunanswered. ee GylEyal,Iván Szelényi, Arewetoconsideras intellectuals thosewho more fruitful for me exactlybecause itavoids ugh which society is ‘thought’ by its members, in its by is‘thought’ and society which ugh 3 open tocriticism regardingthecriteriaby What aboutthosewho,althoughimportant individualsthatmight beincludedinthe individual,butitde ructural functionthat 2-3. e thetaskofpin-pointing

1 ectuals orapparatchiks? ctural definitionhasthe DrawingonTorpey’s ition, ideologyetc.As and Eleanor R. Townsley, and EleanorR. confusing theoretical claims toknowledgeand scribes acertainsite theintellectual

CEU eTD Collection 3 2 1 interactions andthestructures inside astate-socialist system. Moreover, this intellectuals, butofprovidinganoperative,rela point: herintentionisnotthatofofferinga methodology (thefactthather“definition”in group oramongstthestateapparatchiks.Inthisse structural approach evades thequestion ofwhethe Simionescu wasamember of thepolitical elit activities whilebeingnevertheless members of allows onetotakeintoaccountpersons whoar to thehomogeneouscharacterof“int a more important role allegiances ofuniversityprofessorsfrom interw what traitismore important in necessarily confineaspecific group identity ofthoseemployed insuch Astructuralapproachdoesnotaimatdefi social positionofintellectualactivitydonebyva notoriously difficult todetermine. out. Itde-emphasises theparticularsocial classical classanalysishemoved his attention to the importance of state resources; see his which he picked up adifferent trait in explaining the character of fascist sympathisers: instead of providing a Cambridge University Press, 2004). Press, University 2004). Cambridge See note14. offascism the way in the study exactly to in wasrelated innovations of Mann’s one claimMichael that can One Torpey, 3. Dissent, and Socialism, Intellectuals, rather thantheircondi

of aspecific social space,the characterisingthis specificgroup: ” 1 anactivity.Ithink that thisis

ofpeopleintoacertain clas

ellectuals’ guild,”arealsoavoided. tion asstateemployees? definition whichmight extensivelydenoteallthe cludes toomany people)assomehow missing the e whilebeingawriternevertheless.Employing a 14 ar Romania shouldtheirin characteristics of the intellectuals, whichare e inan intermediary position, doingintellectual type of approach allows hertodetermine the rious people,leavingas tional conceptexplainingintellectualactivity thepoliticalestablishment: MirceaHoria ning whoandwhatintelle nse, IconsiderTorpey’scaveatatVerdery’s r heshould beincluded intheintellectuals’ cultural world, without considering s, leavingopenthequestionof inanaccountofthepolitical veryimportant asitdoesnot 2 Similar problems related ide forthemoment the tellectual trainingplay ctuals are,butthe Fascists 3 Moreover,this (Cambridge: CEU eTD Collection 2 1 connections andadministrative r field; similarly the socialcapitaland itsform, po recognition, literaryprizes,aest social ladder.ByculturalcapitalImean the dimensions whichdefined theresources used by apersonused innegotiating his position onthe Townsley published) orwithinthedebatesaboutrealis adjudicated andwhichisconstant position aswriters notasanestablished status, by usingBourdieu’s conceptof FollowingKatherine field. Verdery’s lead,Iwillseetheir in whichtheseactivitiestookplac as intellectuals. Inorder todothatIwillbecareful indiscerning thespecific institutional context Myanalysis ofthe theories: Iwillbeinterested inthose but bytheimportancethatsocialactorscangain: of “field”, aswithinBourdieu’s theory afield is it closedfrom the influencesofotherdomains. Itis Eyal,Szelényi, and Townsley, Pierre Bourdieu, Loïc J.D. Wacquant, intrinsic properties of the object inquestion. what happenstoanyobjectthattraversesth We may thinkofafieldasspacewithinwhic where theeffects ofthefieldcease. 2 I willuse theconcepts of cultural capital Making Capitalism, Making Târgovi

hetic ascendancy,evaluationwhich An Invitationto ReflexiveSociology ecognition. Iusebothoftheterms because,asEyal,Szelenyi ly disputedeitherthroughsocial e: theliteraturefieldandth ş te activities

School 1 20-22. 20-22.

willfairlyfallinTorpey’s category ofstructural ofthegroupmembers wh symbolic assetsthatapersongotthroughpeer- 15 m. FollowingVerderyandEyal,Szelényi definednotsomuch byst litical capital, represents thenetworkof personal but asafluctuating one, whichneeds tobe inthis sense that she The limits of afield are situated at thepoint is spacecannotbeexplainedsolelybythe h aneffectoffield and political capitalas hierarchical e cultural industry underpinning it e culturalindustryunderpinningit (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1992), 100. 100. Press, 1992), Polity (Cambridge: means (theirattemptstoget are intrinsictotheliterary uses Bourdieu’sconcept rict institutional limits, ich characterisedthem is exercised,so that CEU eTD Collection definitions andclaims topower definitions of thewriterproposedby differentsoci the socialspace inwhichintellectualactivities formal practices,between intellectual andpolitical eliteswithinthecultural field, Iwill describe describe atlengthinthefirst specific type ofintellectuallabourwhichwas publish withinastate-organisedcult the complex processthroughwhicha system. Themembers ofthe Socialist Romania and on thepositionof thisspecific intellectual activityinside thesocialist Consequently, my interest 2 1 chapter aswithinthecultural fi impossible definition of theterm “intellectual.” Focusingon aspecificsocialspace andon practices,ratherthan onthesocial categorisation ofaspecificgrouppeoplehas the advantageofavoidingtheissuean Petrescu, whom Itakeascasestudies,werenoexception. relationship withthepoliticalrealitysurround discourse aboutrealismofferedwritersthepossibilitytodefinetheirpracticeand 1960s andcontinuedthroughouttherestof them. InordertodothatIwillfocusonthedebate capital. and Townsleyshowed,instatesocialism socialcapitaltends tobeidentified withpolitical Verdery, Eyal,Szelényi, and Townsley, 1

National Ideology National , 92. Making Capitalism, Capitalism, Making

Târgovi chapter. Bypointingouttherela

eld thelimits between theintellectual elite andthepolitical one 2 within the specific state-socialist system whichengendered will fallontheprocessof ural system. First,I will consider the activity of a writer asa ş person isacceptedwithinthe te Groupwill serveasacase 22. 22. 16 were framed. Second,Iwillconsider thevarious institutionalised underspecific conditions that I ing them; MirceaHoriaSimionescu andRadu about realism thatresurfaced atthe endofthe This willprove very important inthe third socialist period,whichIchosebecausethe al actors, whilebeingcar tionship betweentheinformal and becoming literary worldandmanages to study allowingme toanalyse andbeing eful tosituatethese awriterin CEU eTD Collection manoeuvrable subject.” purpose beingthatofdestroying the Romanian people…TheStalinistpolicestate Romanian statewasconfiscatedbyapoliticalgroup foreign totheinterestsandaspirationsof elite andtherestofsociety:“Bluntlyput totalitarian paradigm, includingth the Analysis oftheCommunist Dictatorship and empirically refinedmodelbecame the2004 distinction whichresumed thetotalitarian paradigm 2 1 negotiations andinformalstrategies.Members of made theinteractions between thepolitical elite Whatmy analysiswilltrytoproveisthat the means ofproduction,theadmi Asitwasthe casewithothernational contex draw astark contrast betweenthesocialis in aparticular context,thatofthecultural field. Depicting the socialspace defined bytheseinteractions willalsohelpinestablishing state’srole the wayinwhichinteractionswithintellectualfieldwereestablishedandtookplace. much asitrequired intellectuals. Inthissensea state resources. Administering thecultural system were verymuchblurredbytheirdependenceupo 2006), 17, accessed June 2, 2010, Dictatorship as Experience Comisiapreziden Forthe German case, seeKonrad Jarausch, “Carea ț ial ă pentru analiza dictaturii comuniste din România, , ed. Konrad Jarausch (New York: Berghahn, 1999), 52. 1999), Berghahn, York: (New Jarausch , ed. Konrad 2

http://www.presidency.ro/static/o

e starkdifferencebetweenastatemonopolised byapolitical the citizenand civicspiritingeneralandcreatetheperfect nistrative structurewhichunde t state (withitsParty) andthe“society,” 17 , foraperiodoffourdecadesandhalf,the , Final Report functional approachcanhelponeinidentifying nd Coercion: The GDR as Welfare Dictatorship,” in duetothewayinwhichstatemonopolised n thesame administrative system anduponthe andtheintellectual one which reinforcedsome ofelements ofthe the bureaucracy andintellectuals weretied by was notatraditional authoritarian system, its . IntheRomanian case,themost prestigious required politically trustful bureaucrats as ts, thelocal literature hasoften tended to rdine/RAPORT_FINAL_CPADCR.pdf of thePresidentialCommissionfor Raport Final[Final Report] rpinned the cultural sphere rpinned theculturalsphere a disputedterrainof

1 atheoretical (Bucure . şti, CEU eTD Collection involved withinthem, bythenegotiationsbetweenth cultural fieldwasasystem which wasmade possiblethrough stateinstitutions and theactors between stateandsociety, 2 1 of some concernfortheregime, ithadtobe field. However,whatalsoneedstobementioned is dissidents. Inthissense,Verd essential for theregime’s legitimacy, either inth Asmentioned earlier,theintellectuals’importance fortheregime sprangfrom the symbolic resourcesthattheycarried.Theiracc the unknownpersoncame from.” everybody else,andevenifsomebody seemed beunknown,itwasquiteeasytoguesswhere to a “compressed” socialspacewhere, inIstván common dependenceuponover-arching a ratherunfortunateParsonianmetaphor) "inter-penetrate.” fabric: “thestateandother socialforms (network system Consequently,the work. the formal structuresinwhichtheyoperatedaswellbytheinformal tieswhichmade the (2007): 364. 364. (2007): István Rév MarkEdele,“Soviet Society, So 1.3.

Intellectuals andPublicDiscourse , Retroactive Justice: Pre-history of Post-Communism cial Structure,andEveryday Life:

ery’s analysisprovidesthebasi 2

state’s institutions weredeeply intellectuals andtheParty losetheir theoretical relevance: the state structures at a national level made the cultural field Rév’srather plasticdepiction,“everybodyknew ess toknowledgeandsymbolic means made them 18 made public. Literatureandpropagandawere made public. s, kinship,classes)overlap,interact,and(touse eir roleaspropagandists that inorder for intellectuals’ discourse tobe e politicaleliteandin (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2005), 4. 4. Press, 2005), University Stanford (Stanford: Major Frameworks Reconsidered,” 1 Inthisperspective theoppositions cs forastudyoftheintellectual immersedwithin thesocial tellectuals alike.The or intheir role as Kritika Kritika 8.2 CEU eTD Collection Society

2 1 normative idealofarationaldebateorasHabe consequence ofthis,arguingwithinthecultu according to literarystandardsdefined byliterar regarding thepolitical Thepubliccharacterof theintellectuals’ disc space. Firstofall,professiona interviews. position inside thesystem implies takingintoa character ofone’spublic intellectuals’ discourse wascreated withinacu which intheirturnwereproducedas Literary magazines, booksaswellothermedi which thediscourseisframed: fact thatitwas FollowingMichael Warner, Iunderstand the publiccharacter of theintellectual’s discourse springingnotsomuch fromits to whichtheywereaddressed. important in asmuch astheypresupposed theex Jürgen Habermas, Habermas, Jürgen Michael Warner, , trans. Thomas Burger (Cambr autotelic, itexists only asan endfor wh A publicisaspaceofdiscourseorganizedby addressed. sites posted, speechesdelivered,opinions Publics andCounterpublics Publics addressed The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: AnInquiry into a Category of Bourgeois 1

sphere:literaturewassupposedtobeproduced interventionswithin to apublic.Apublicisinthis

l standards ofexcellence ensured acertaindegreeofautonomy idge: MIT Press, 1989), 27. 27. 1989), Press, MIT idge: (New York: Zone, 2002), 66. 66. 2002), Zone, York: (New circulationinside thesocialspace public rmas putsit“people’spubl 19 ccount thepublicity of istence ofapublicwhichhadaccess tothem and lture ofpublicdiscoursewhichdetermined the ral field,likeanypublicdebate,impliedthe ich booksarepublished, the culturalfield.Analys interventions becauseofthesemedia. The y criticsand writersalike.Secondlyandasa a ensured thecirculati ourse was,toacertainextent, aprivileged produced. Itexistsbyvirtue ofbeing nothingotherthandisc way constitutedthroughthein their articles, booksand by writersandassessed on ofthesediscourses, ic useoftheirreason.” shows broadcast, web shows broadcast,web ing theintellectuals’ per se,asfrom the ourse itself.Itis 2

CEU eTD Collection which wasusuallydefined interms of “national literature.” 4 3 2 1 within this publicsphere. Furthermore, Iconsid framed bytheintellectuals andthe wayinwhic analyse thewayinwhichthis prior contributionstothefield, suchasKath representa certain discursive practices asmore public sphereofdebateinwh and lackof self-interest aswellthe institutionaladvantageofprofe Inthissense, thecultural field allowed the which throughthenormativevalu disqualify theopponent’sopinions. accusations ofself-interestwereso functioned asayardstickwithintheculturaldebate present and activeasawayofassessingand ev Habermas’s case,thenormative idealofarati excludes from thecommondebatewhat isconsider practice, asprivateinterests arealways expre public sphereandasnumerous As aconsequencethisruledout of the writers’ interventions). writers’interventions). the of One An Understanding of Possibility “The Respect,” “Mutual C analysis ofthe issue of“natio see theArge 87. 1997), Verdery, National Ideology, Field of inPower,” the Sphere Public Calhoun, “The Craig Forthe importance of the nationalist discourse see Verdery, Nancy Fraser, ă linescu and the Complexes ş 5 (1972) 5 (New York: Routledge, Routledge, (NewYork: Condition the "postsocialist" on Reflections Critical Interruptus: Justice

issue preceding the National Writers’ Congress, National the preceding issue nal literature”, see MirceaMartin, of Romanian Literature] 187. Foranexample ofthe way in which th

ich people could define their ideas about literature andimpose public discourseandthe “self-interests”anditim commentators haveremarked es of“itspublicusethei oftenmadeinthecultural field, (Bucure erine Verdery’s orMacrea-Toma’s, Iwilltryto ssed withinthe publicsphere; thepublic sphere 20 tive ormore worthpursuingthanothers.Unlike h thePartycouldimpose onal debatealthoughimpo Social Science History existence ofasocialspacepublicdiscourse s oftheperiod.Thisisonereasonswhy ed unrepresentative. Nevertheless, justlikein other,” “Sincerity and Urbanity” (these were the titles titles werethe (these Urbanity” “Sincerityand other,” ti: Albatros, 1981). şti: Albatros, 1981). aluating publicdiscourse:inthissenseit er this siteof the analysis asbeingof G. C National Ideology, Ideology, National ă linescu linescu plied thenotionofacommongood 2 Ofcourse,justlikeinHabermas’s in which the writers’ the which in r reason”,notionofcommongood e accusations of self-interest functioned, i complexele literaraturii române [G. române literaraturii şi complexele sphere created 3 thiscouldneverhappenin 34.3 (2010): 308. 308. (2010): 34.3 ssional standards createda 98-137; for a contemporaneous 4 astheycouldeasily its owninterpretation ssible to attain was ssible toattainwas main concerns were through itwere 1

CEU eTD Collection theoretical ideasthatare general, impr itto to connect ways, itispossible in different empirical world the empirical world:“Bylimiting limitsthe one Inthis triesto and relatepractice. senseacase one theory is notan object 217-226. Ragin defines the researchprocess asa gradual 3 2 1 (nationalism, realism, etc).More entering andusingtheseinstitutionstheywere alsofacingthesocialdiscoursesfuellingthem However,throughthebanalfactofpublishi formal andinformal institutionswhichdetermin are exceptions andIshall non-popular literarystyle whichtheyused,andthei anomalous quality,theirnon-representativity, contrary: the “casing” process field. Itisnottherepresentativity of thesewriterswhichisof interest tome, ratheronthe units generalizable cases,representatives forthebulk Party’s officialline. newspapers which,asMihaiComan remarks, were in theexpressionofalternativediscourses,unlike considerable importance asthepartialautonomy th Social Inquiry Social reason.” Robert K. Yin, results ofthecasestudy.Thisisbecause yourcasestudiesarenot‘sampling un Charles C. Ragin, “’Casing’ and th “’Casing’and C.Ragin, Charles “Afatal flaw in doing case studies is to conceive of statistical generalization asthe method of generalizing the Mihai Coman, 1.4. 2 whichmight tellushowtheaveragewriter In choosingthemembers ofthe

A CaseStudy? , eds.Charles C.Raginand Howard Saul Becker Media and Journalism in Romania inRomania Journalism and Media 1 Case Study Research: Design and Methods

consider them assuch.

3 whichdetermined me tochoosethem isexactlytheirex-centric, ecise, but dynamic verbalstatements” ( e Process ofSocialInquiry,”in over, theydidthis Târgovi (Berlin: Vista, 2006), 35. 35. Vista,2006), (Berlin: 21 of Romanianwriters: mycasesarenotsampling unfolding of different “casin ed theirpositionandth ş te r non-allegiancetoother marginal positioninsidetheliterary field, the politicallyobedienta at theliteraryfielden School would behavewithintheSocialistliterary ng theywereenteringintoanetworkof central pressofdaily at adefinedmoment intime, theendof

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2003), 31. my intentionisnotto considerthem What is aCase: Exploring Foundations of but a“way station” (225) through which Idem its’ andshould notbechosenforthis ). ). eir actions;similarly, by g procedures” through which nd amouthpiece ofthe joyed made it essential andpopula literary camps. They r-oriented CEU eTD Collection 3 2 1 field, asasocialspaceinpoliticisedpublic structures areembodied inspecific,localcontexts. similar cases,butwhatitcantellusaboutsociet mentions theimportance ofthecase literary system, whilealsodescribingtheirown macro-social elements determining andmoulding calls “extendedcasemethod:” as writers inside this system. subsystem wasdone,showinghowdiffere The literary field,itseconomic syst will beananthropological inquiry and the1980s,byseeinghowcertainsocialagents namelystructure andspecificsocialprocesses, theliteraryst for thisreason thatmy interest is in which determined socialactors (the that particular time andplace. Myintention isto 1960s, andconsequentlytheyweredealing with the C. Ragin (London: SAGE, 2009), 299. 299. 2009), SAGE, (London: C. Ragin Seán ÓRiain, “Extending the Ethnographic Case Study,” in practice in because and context local the within are present Metropolis “Thisisindeed whyBurawoy’smethod extended case work Michael Burawoy, “The Extended CaseMethod,”in SeeBurawoy’s diferentiation between the generic and the genetic significance of acase study. Târgovi As such,methodologically, my thesisfallswith , ed. MichaelBurawoy ş te School will serve as acasestudy for thewayinwhichsocialisation intothis

(Berkeley:University of California, 1991), 271-290.

2 inthe socialtrajectory of theTârgovi em ofproductionandthediscursi not atalltheoretic into the structure ofasocial s studyinthisregardcomes not Târgovi nt individualswereproducedand Ethnography Unbound: Power and Resistance in the Modern Modern the in Resistance and Power Unbound: Ethnography ş 22 spherefunctionedandwhattheconditionsof te describe this specificconfiguration andtheway y asawholeandthewayinwhichmacro-social contextuality decreases as we move to the macro-level”. the as wemove to decreases contextuality writers)dealt responses tothismacr Handbook of Case Study Research, Study Case of Handbook 3 al, buthistorical: s – because the time-space ties their activitiesandposition withinthe Inmy “case”itcantellushowtheliterary specific configuration of integrated withinit.Assuch,myenterprise in thecategoryofwhatMichaelBurawoy ructures characterisingthe1970s ubsystem ofasocialiststate:the with itandresponde ve practicescharacterisingit. from whatitcantellusabout 1 ş describingaspecificsocial te writers Iwilldiscern the o factors.AsBurawoy produced themselves theseinstitutions at to thelarger structures eds. D. Byrne and and Byrne D. eds. d toit.Itis CEU eTD Collection microsociology”. Burawoy, “The Extended Case Method,” 280. 280. Case Method,” Extended “The Burawoy, microsociology”. observed? Here significance refers to What must be true about the social co itis embedded. in which world social the about ittellsus acase what of relates to the mode significance genetic debate. will trytodescribe thediscourse were included into the planand maintained their functioned, movingafterwardstothe wayinwh describing thegeneralinstitutionofed general system totheparticularcasestudywhic interventions wereembedded. Myanalysiswill constantly make referencetothemoregeneralpr Consequently, inanalyzingtheactionsofMi space: case study comes geneticsignificance, from its it 5 4 3 2 1 contextual embodiment ofmore generalprocessesspecifictothesocialistsystem. and theconfiguration of theliterary field. activities of the intellectual activity were within this c “Theextended casemethod takes the opposite appr (301). extensions cultural and ÓRiain calls institutional What See ÓRiainfora discussion. The generic significance refers to “ Idem. Idem. contexts ofdeterminations. “individual” (i.e.undividable)connectedness ofelements, tying its complexity, itsdepth, its thickness. Ca In constitutingthesocialsituationasunique The relevanceofthecasestudyis Târgovi ş te writerswere embedded in aspecific empirical context,theinstitutions

the statistical the .” Burawoy, significance “Thesocietal Extended Case Method,” 279. ntext or historical past for our case to have assumed the character we have about realism, moving lateron 2

ontext. Assuchratherthangeneric, significance, generalization from asample to a population. In the decided byitsempirical “extensions:” 4 Describing these activities implies describing the itorial planthroughwhichthepublishinghouses 23 rcea HoriaSimionescuorRaduPetrescuIwill ich MirceaHoriaSimionescu andRaduPetrescu oach and seeks to uncover themacro foundation of imply see-sawmovement from aconstant the social status.Similarly, ocess and tothelarger debatesinwhichtheir s historicalposition in adetermined time and usality thenbecomes multiplex, involving an h Iuse:inthethirdchapterwillstartby , theextendedcasemethod paysattentionto to theirintervention inthis the socialsituationtoits 1 in thefourth chapter I theimportance of the 3 thefactthat the 5

CEU eTD Collection Geertz takes the Balinese cock fight asa full countries: hetends to take his cases studies as paradigma ofparticular distribution a margins of the on aberrations structures, within which cases canbe lo ap casemethod extended programme’ …Burawoy’s ‘strong 4 3 2 1 analysing theanomalies andtheexceptionswhic of thecasestudy,seeinginitanother critique pittedatGeertz’s in whichthecaseisembedded. ThereforeIcanhardlyseehowhisprogramme avoidshisown micro factors,negotiatingtheirpositionand determine thelocal context under alocalisedcasestudy.That programme indeed betrue,Ithinkthat similar to Bryman’s position inthis issue. case method lie initscapac undertaking oftheory-construction. he usesand thewayin whichheperceives the Burawoy’s conceptionofextended-casemethod comes inrelationtotheconceptoftheorythat the historicalexperienceofthos itself especiallyrelevant for analysing theseleg Astheintellectualsholdanimportant placewi space oflegitimation, aninquiry into theirposi rather than constructed from Bura below”. constructed than rather 10. 1994), Publications, Yin, Robert in quoted universes” or populations This was one of the strongest critiques against Burawoy’ strongest against critiques the was This one of “[extended case study]avoi ethnogra status claimsof scientific the “Burawoy’s for to than rather propositions theoretical casesto of terms generalisability in the of couched be should issue “The 2 inwhichthepurposeistounveilgeneralprocessesor“generalcase”lying ds the of ds the pitfall universalismrelativism by or “thickdescription:” the factthatit ity toreconstruct 3 insteadofperceiving Burawoy’s opinionverymuch depe

e whosupportedorsufferedthem. cated- allowing them to become strategi become them to allowing cated- woy, “The Extended Case Method”, CaseMethod”, 275. woy, “The Extended As hementions, thegeneralisa expressionsociet ofa is whyhestressesthewayinwhich themacro-factors Case StudyResearch: DesignMethods and 1 AlthoughIdoconsiderthat stance ofanall-encompassing concept, various setsoftheory,bein cases.” Ó Riain,“Extending the Ethnographic”, 296. place of extended casemethod inthemoregeneral phy and for the range of its theoretical ambition constitute a constitute ambition ofitstheoretical range and for the phy tion, basedonanextended casemethod canprove 24 tic case studies for socialist organisation of labour, just like like labour, just of organisation forsocialist case studies tic itimation strategies while beingcareful torelate importance, dependingonthespecificsituation in thelocal context amixture ofmacro and s studies of the anthropology of labour in socialist socialist in oflabour anthropology s studies of the h might givetoacasestudyitsspecific pears to be built on a notion of all-encompassing ofall-encompassing anotion on built to be pears thin thestate-socialist social structure, the y’s social structure. leavesaside thehistorical character seeingthe situation as shaped from above nds uponhisstrongscientific My pointofdeparturewith c negative cases rather thansimply ble qualitiesoftheextended g inthissenseverymuch in some casesthismight (Thousand Oaks: Sage Sage Oaks: (Thousand 4 insteadof CEU eTD Collection privations of others are enfolded ( Columbia orEast Africa. In other words:experiences em referential component: itis inseparable 3 “To put itmoreconcretely: acoffee break ina factory Everyday Life, 2 1 acknowledged ineachcase,whilebeing alwayssensib within aspecificcasestudyis determining factors whichisstillpresent with analysed. processes, andassuch itis theoretical framework throughwhatÓRi unveil anyhiddenstructureor recognising thefactthatnetworkinwhichaspecificcasestudyisrooted doesnotnecessarily Oneofthewaysavoidingpitfalls taking thelessonsgivenbymicrohistory and mould aspecificcasestudyanditshistory. tends to leave outtheinterpla historical traits.Byseeingthesituationaspr (New York:Cambridge Univers hypotheses, but arerather paradigm Alf Lüdtke, “Introduction: IstheWhat History of “Introduction: AlfLüdtke, a agree withhe John Gerring Ifully when sense Inthis reconstructors find themselvesimmersed ina “courses of events”iswaitingtobeuncoveredandbroughtlight …Initially, the Reconstruction doesnotmean thatsome long- The case study isnevertheless immersed ina specific network andisconnected tolarger of interpretation,andrulesforactionwhichcan beconsideredvalidinagivencontext. mediations aswelltheruptures, “gaps” areelements inthenetwork.Tophraseit of theirgropingandprobingdoesittake 3 Whatthenetwork metaphor doesinLüdtke’scase ed.AlfLüdtke

(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995), 14. 14. 1995), Press, University Princeton (Princeton: ity Press, 2007), 41-42. aufgehoben a laboratoryinwhichva

-generating. See John Gerring, Gerring, SeeJohn -generating. y ofstructureandagency, never asettledissue,butsometh from theconditions of production and general case,nordoesitprovide ) in the striations of their formation.” Alf Lüdtke, “Introduction”, 18. “Introduction”, Lüdtke, Alf their of formation.” the striations ) in ain calls“astrategicnegativecase” Everyday Life and Who Are Its Practitioners?” in AreItsPractitioners?” Who Lifeand Everyday imarily shaped from above discontinuities betweenth 25 Burawoy; the importance ofthemacro elements ffirms thatcasestudies do not necessarily reject or refute erge, but these arenever inisolation. The pleasures and or in the relaxing comfort ofacaféalways contains a Alltagsgeschichte Burawoy’sstrongscientificprogram isby on amore solidform. Discontinuitiesand rious elements canbeeasily discerned and confusing contextor‘n le toitsspecificlocal Case Study Research: Principles and Practices standing hiddenstructureofhistorical differently: whatisimportant arethe isthatitgetsridofthehierarchy macro andmicro elementswhich ing whichmust beempirically experience of the coffeeplanters in seriously.BythisImean aforcefulreassessment ofa e thought-images, modes , Burawoyinadvertently 1 configuration: itis : et’; onlyasaresult The History of 2

CEU eTD Collection Târgovi that Lüdtketalkedaboutthroughan materials. Thisframework willalsomake more allowing me todelveintothe waytheyperc advantage ofchoosingasmall unitofanalysis self-explanatory public interventions inliterary auto-biographical writings,such were immersed andtheir ownrole analysis willbethewayinwhichwritersrepr 2 1 based onwhatTorpeywouldcallafunctionalis analyses his/her socialpositio intellectual isalsothefact influenced theiractions.AsImentioned atthe imagined their position inside the literary system andthewayinwhichthese representations Oneoftheconsequencesidea be anincreased attention tothe wayinwhich themembers of the changed bythemacro-structures. not justexternalforcesthatshapeaspecific Institutions under Romanian Communism] Communism] Romanian under Institutions Kotkin, “The State-Is It “The Us? Kotkin, Russian Review Memoirs, and Kremlinologists,” Archives, from their immediate environment upto insome and waysitwas every what regime itselfoperated, themselves: in “Kremlinology, agents Ioana Macrea-Toma, social the of insights theoretical usethe should historian thatthe suggestion Kotkin’s Stephen idea follows This ş te School wererequieredtoen Privilighen thats/heisableto

n inside the literary field. ţ ia. Institu other words, arose not at Harvard but in the Soviet Union. It washow the as journals or diaries, published orunpublished,butalsototheir as journalsordiaries,published the Kremlin. Kremlinology was,onecouldwayStephen oflife.”a say, withinthem. Anincreased attentionwouldbegiventotheir analysisofthecompeting disc (Cluj-Napoca: CasaC Editura ter indialoguewith. ţ ii literare în comunismul românesc [Privilligentsia. Literary [Privilligentsia. românesc comunismul în ii literare produce abodyoftextswhich situation, butalsoindividualpersonschangingand 26 beginning of thechapter,whatcharacterises the case studyemployed throughout thisthesis will t approach,suchasIoanaMacrea-Toma’s, evident the pointsof ruptureanddiscontinuities one living there did, to varying degrees, at varying levels, like alimited groupof writerswillbethatof esented both thesocialstructuresinwhichthey eived andassessedthei magazines. Unlikelarger 1 In thissense one ă r ţ ii de ii de ourses thatthe Ş Târgovi tiin ţă , 2010). , 2010). 61 (2002): 47-48. r statusinpublished ş sociologicalstudies reflects asmuch asit te groupthemselves of thefocimy members ofthe 2 the CEU eTD Collection 1 sense oftheworldsurroundingherorhim: InthiswayIhopethatone the oldWeberian tradition, Bourdieu and Wacquant, because human beings make meaningful theworldwhichmakes them. Social factsareobjectswhichalsothe An Invitation An the spontaneoussociologythroughwhichever

, 7. , 7. can dojusticetowhatPierre 27 object ofknowledgewithinrealityitself Bourdieu called, in mind with Bourdieu called,inmind with ybody triestomakes 1

CEU eTD Collection 2 1 new generationofwritersemerging place inEasternEurope, onecouldactuallypublishaudacious works.” and how. autonomy, whilenewmodernistliterar interaction withthe literary fi world topreviouslyun-publishablecategories writers pronetokeepsome of underpinnings thatpermitted theentranceinto th TheRomanian liberalisation leave aside thepoliticalpressureof1950s, presentation ofthe which theeventsfromrest ofthechapte with the literati’s social milieu. In what follows thesis willprobably remainunknownforaforeign Despitetheamount ofpaperanddespitethe within theRomanian literary field, most of the 2. Censorship] Foran overviewofthe problems that Raport Final Raport

2.1. Dramatis Personae

rsnigteSee Presenting theScene 1 As the FinalReportmentions, thisenvironment develope the As (Bucure , 501. ti: Albatros, 2001): a collection of censorship reports from the period. from reports period. the censorship a of 2001): collection şti: Albatros, Târgovi ş te School

eld: institutions such astheWriters’ Union gained considerable the advantages that th thecensorshad,seeMarin Mocanu, inthe1960swasitselfamotle period ofthe1960shadmanage and ofthetwowriterswhichserveascasestudies. y genresmade itratherdifficulttodecidewhatcensor 28 Iwilloffer aquick glimpseintothescene on actors, as wellas most of the events from this rs take place.Similarly, Iwillgive ashort e culturalfieldofanewgenerationyoung but alsoto preparesome oftheinstitutional of writers,thePartyhadalsochangedits reader or foraRomanian readerunfamiliar fierceness oftheactionsanddebates ey hadgained.By d sothat“unlikeinanyother y crew,itscontrastwiththe Cenzura Comunist d notonlytomomentarily 2 Despitethefact thatthe opening uptheliterary ă [Communist CEU eTD Collection of the“liberalisation program.” Theideological pressure wasitself intensified bythe institutional that similar tendencieshadbeenpresentbefore also ledtoarashrejuvenationof suddenly puttoahaltandpoliticalpressurein Thisbecamemore orlessclearwhenin1971 ended theliberalisationperiodthroughJuly Theses.Thereforms ofthe1960swhere independence from thepoliticalfiel become objectof dispute: toomuch avant-garde could beconsideredastoo much politics,asthe uncertain statusallowedthisambiguity, sothat something different incomparison withthesocialis James Joyce-stylecouldappearasbelongingtoth committed works;thusarealistnovel criticising thecollectivisationand ahigh-modernist novel managed tointroducebothatendencytowardsm was, despiteitscriticalattitude, come into conflict: whilethefirstoneemphasise directions wereputund the other hand itencouraged apolitical typeof modernist typeofliterat Thiswasduetothewayin ambiguous message and anambiguous strategy:on identity throughwhichthe1960sgenerationfashioneditself. writers of socialistrealism butalso theliberalis ure throughthe“diversityofstyles er thesame blanketterm ofliber much more relatedtothepolitic thenationalistlanguage d wasinitself apolitical act. which theliberalisationrhetor 29 1971theyhadbeenperceived,however, aspart cultural matters onceagain mounted. Thetheses ation rhetoric allowed the creation of acommon workswithnopoliticalmeaning couldeasily e same Afterall,bothnovelsrepresented camp. d aestheticstandardsof literature witha critical edge.Both of these t realist prose.Theterm liberalization andits odernist stylesandonetowardspolitically the Partychanged itscultural policiesand the onehanditledto of theinterwarperiod;despitefact ” thePartyallowedin1965,whileon alisation, althoughth al field.Inthissensethe1960s ic ofthe1960scomprised an evaluation,thesecond ade-politicised, ey couldeasily CEU eTD Collection L evaluation orextrinsicstanda is thetypeofdiscoursethattheyusedand set ofpeople,aswriterscouldeas 2 1 interventions from the1970swe generation, whishingtomaximise aestheticist camp andvice-versa. two wasnotnecessarily clear cut:political st political ortheanti-aesthetic follows Iwillcallthesecondcam autonomous poleofliteraryinstitutions, havingcont assessment. Whilethefirstcamp closertoth was discourse emphasisingprofessi upon theseextrinsiccriteria.At the Party.Similarly, their standards for evaluating Ion L more andconnectedtothepol Thechangealsoledtoare-shufflingoftheoldallianceswithinliberalisinggeneration of the1960s:members whowereperceivedasflag which actuallyintensifiedtheCentre’s reforms asthePressLawof1974orintroductionvague“decentralisationreforms” such See for alarger analysis Verdery, MichaelShafir, ă ncr ă ă ncr jan’s articlesandbooksfrom ă jan, PaulAnghel,adoptingatthesame time Romania: Politics, Economics, Boulder Politics,Economics, and Society. Romania: ist camp.Similarly tothe1960spe National Ideology National

rds. Forexample, asamember ofthe1960sgeneration, Ion nt intheoppositedirection. onal, aestheticstandardsand 2 the same time, othermembers moved towardsamoreliberal Moreover,thecamps donotn ily shiftfrom onesidetoanothe p theaestheticistcamp, whileth itical pole:EugenBarbu,AdrianP theautonomyoflitera that periodfit intothelibe controlover theeconomic activity. , 167-214. , 167-214. whether theyemphasisedpr 30 andards of evaluationcouldbeusedbythe literaryworksweremore andmore dependent e politicalpole,these rol overtheWriters’ UnionCouncil.Inwhat -bearers oftheculturalreforms came tobe thepoliticalandnationalistlanguageof (Colorado:Lynne Rienner, 1985),120-124. ralising tendenciesoftheyoung ecessarily denoteawell-defined riod thedifferencebetween peer-recognised yardsticksof r. What isofgreatimportance ry field,whilemostofhis e first onewillbecalledthe ă unescu, MihaiUngheanu, ofessional standardsof cond was closer to the cond wasclosertothe 1

CEU eTD Collection 2 1 also ahelpfulstrategyofidentif The been adoptedbythegroupofwritersthemselves a the critics. Thename first appeared inanarticlewrittenby DanCulcer The study willofferme aguideintotheperiod. of theinstitutional reforms tookplace.Choosingsome ofthe systems, whilelargelyfocusing onthehinge-p thesis willtakeuptheperiodfollowing1965asaunitof editorial system andtotherelative autonom the endof1960swill remain thesame untilth structures of literary production, the centralised sy different: a higher pitch andmore dramatic an also thediscussions about real actually acontinuationof Despitethe importance ofthe1971JulyThes been called)thatitsparkled,most ofthear (Shafir, SeeChapter 2 and Chapter 4; this is the reasons why Shafir puts them under the title of“simulated changes.” Vatra 2.2. School 8 (1978). (1978). 8 Romania, Romania,

Presenting theActors Târgovi was aconvenient term forthe critics, butby offering agroup identity, the term was 60). ş te School thedebatesalreadypresentinth

as it is now called was as much acreationofitsauthorsasone ication foritsmembers. Ashe ism andthenovel.Thethemes werethesame, thetonewas y ofinstitutions suchasthe Writers’ Union. guments and thediscoursesfrom the1970swere 31 lay betweenthe1960san d violent gestures. Similarly, theinstitutional lthough itismostly used stem oftheeditorial structures introducedat es andthemini-cultura e fallof theregime bothinregardto the analysisintalki e 1960s:thenationalistdiscourse,but Târgovi himself recognized,MirceaHoria ş te School 2 d the1970swhenmost and,eversince,ithas ng aboutthesocialist l revolution(asithas in literarycriticism. writers asacase 1 My CEU eTD Collection Enescu, Matei C which included Mihai Constantinescu (violin player), Radu Cl critics oftheinterwarperiod.Moreover,gr were greatlyinfluencedbythe 1946, Tudor of them beingstudentsattheFacultyofLe they firststartedtowrite.Theothermembers of 2 1 Ol Inaddition tothe similarity network offriends.Thecorethegroup,M. Italo Calvino. Moreovertheybecame knownfortheirusageof autobiographicalgenres. their post-modernistcounterpartsintheWes period theyofferedamixture ofav style andmanneroftheircolleagues:refusingbot their booksaftertheageoffort writers making theirdebutinth Costache Ol that ofotherauthorspublished atthesame ti Extensively,theterm denotedaratherhe publishing attheendof1960sandwhoseliterar it offered. Simionescu wasoneofthemost ardentdefendersof theappellationandof Hence, the name ofthe group. MirceaHoria Simionescu, ă reanu knew eachother since 1944, beingcolleagues attheTârgovi 1

ă Ţ reanu, Tudor opa in1947andAlexandruGeorgemuch ă linescu etc.Thegroup’scohesionwas Toxicologia [Toxicology] Ţ opa, PetruCre

lectures deliveredbyGeorgeC y. Secondly,theliteraturewritten at period,theywerenotactuallyyoung.Allofthem published ant-garde and experimental literature similar tothe writingsof oftheirstyles, theyallkneweachother, forming aclose tters of the Bucharest University: PetruCre ţ ia, Alexandru George.Firstofall,unliketheyoung t: JorgeLuisBorges,Thomas Pynchon,JohnBarth, (Bucure me. Members included:Mircea HoriaSimionescu, oup wasembedded inanetworkofacquaintances 32 thegroupwereencounteredinBucharest,most H. Simionescu, Radu Petrescu and Costache RaduPetrescuandCostache H. Simionescu, terogeneous groupofwr h modernism andtherealisttechniquesof ti: Editura Cartea Româneasc şti: Editura y styleandintellectualprofiledifferedfrom later, in1972.TheyearsBucharest increased notonly ă linescu, oneofthemost important by them failedtofallintothe ă pescu (composer), Theodor ş te the group identity that iters whohadstarted

ă high-school , 1983), 162. 162. , 1983), through itsclose ţ ia came in 2 where CEU eTD Collection communiste,” in and Literature. 9 Literature. and Ioana Parvulescu, Alexandru Crisan 3 2 1 the members, thosewho were(literary)the that Iwillconsider them asgui literature, havingsometimes enormo especially duringthe1980s.Inthissense centralised organisationofthe degree theyweremarginalised bytheolderwritersfrom the1960sgeneration. it has been called lacked thesocial capital necessary for entering the literary field, and toalarge Itwasthemarginality, however,aswelltheir experimental literature whichmade them significant for theyounggeneratio Romanian literary worldrenderedthem rathermarginal. literary fieldaswelltheirnon-commitment to writing, althoughnoneofth friendship ties,butalsothroughthemanuscript circulationwhic textbooks. the canondebatesof1990sand,soon,some of marginalized writers of post-warRomanian literature.Consequent regarded aspredecessorsofRomanian postmodern the possibilityofanalternativefrom anoverly SeeTudor the M.H.included9 in casewith Simionescu isthe This Magda R However, duringthe1970smost ofthem we Ţ ă 2

duţ opa’s casein the following chapter. a, “Les Jeunes Loups. Genèse et affirmation d’une génération littéraire dans la Roumanie la Roumanie littérairedans génération d’une etaffirmation Genèse Loups. a, “LesJeunes th Littératures Littératures symboliques et pouvoirs Grade Text Book] as welltheir cultural capitalrendered the eir writingshadyetbeenpublishe

(Bucure editorial networkmade publicati Limba si literatura roman ă siliteratura Limba des intotheliterary culture of n ofwritersemerging inthe1980s.The 1980sGeneration,as us difficultiesingettingpublished. ti: Humanitas, 2001). 2001). şti: Humanitas, ,ed. Mihai Dinu Gheorghiu (Pite Târgovi ly, thepopularitygained 33 most influential in the group: Mircea Horia most influentialinthe group:MirceaHoria th grade manual of Romanian literature: Liviu Papadima, Papadima, Liviu Romanian literature: of manual grade of themembers wereincludedinhigh-school centralised literaryfield.Theystarted tobe ism andasthecentreof analternativecanon theliteraryfeudswhichcharacterised ş . Manual pentru clasa a IX-a [Romanian Language Language [Romanian a IX-a clasa . pentru Manual te School re stillsecondaryfi the period. Iwillfocus ontwoof on increasinglydifficultforthem, represented fortheyoungwriters d. Theirlateen h allowedthemtocontinue Târgovi amongsttheyoungcircles 3 ti: Paralela 45, 2005), 2005), 285. şti: Paralela45, Itisduetothisposition gures inRomanian ș te groupcentralin 1 trance intothe Similarly, the CEU eTD Collection social status the discourseusedbytwoin Production. Thecontrasting socialpositions willa employee ofTheBucharestResearchInstitute Opera. Instarkcontrastwithhisfriend,RaduPe became oftheCulturalCouncil asecretary and cultural scene:for19years he was aneditorof the main Partynewspaper positions. M.H.Simionescu wasanimportant memb Simionescu andRaduPetrescu.Thereasonforth .

entering theliterary worldwereornotinfluencedbytheir 34 from 1971until 1975directoroftheRomanian trescu remained untilhis retirement in1978an for theDevelopment ofFruitandVegetable llow me seeinwhatwaythestrategiesand to is choiceliesintheircontrasting social er of theadministrative hierarchy of the Scânteia , laterhe CEU eTD Collection Editura Funda Editura Gabanyi, 1 publishing facilities and established theirposition w their works.AfterdescribinghowM.H.Simione a prosopographicanalysisthroughwhichIfollow networks easedthewaytostatepublishing.Inthis will usethe notionofsocialcapital inorder personalised connectionsthroughwhichtheycould and RaduPetrescugained access tostateres environment wasdone;specifically,Iwillfocus interacted. which thewritersandbureaucraticpoliti editorial boards,thepu was managed. Administrative bodi with those(formal andinformal) institutions the intellectual eliteassuch production. Forawriter,enteringth state structureswhichprovided cultural fieldinsocialis 3. The nationalization decree from June 11, 1948 put the entir the put 1948 11, from June decree nationalization The

Cultural andAdministrativeElites? Informal NetworksofPower: The state’smonopolyoverpublishing In whatfollows Iwilltrytodepict thewayin Literatura Literatura ţ iei Române, 2001), 24. i politica în România dup înRomânia şi politica t Romania was organisedw blishing housesandth and his/herpeers,butalsoma

the funding andtheadministrativ es, suchastheWriters’ Uni e culturalworldimplied notonly ă 1945 [Literature and Politics in Romania 1945]after Romania in Politics and [Literature 1945 to highlight howhavingaccesstovarious social through whichtheaccess 35 eir editorsprovideda ources, but alsoonthe informal networksof facilities, rea cal elitemanaging theseinstitutionsmovedand on thewayinwhichMirceaHoriaSimionescu scu andRaduPetrescu ensuredtheiraccessto sense,my depictionwillverymuch resemble ithin andthroughthecons e editorial network into st into network e editorial ithin the field, in the nextpart of thechapter my studycasesintheirattempts topublish channel theirclaims togettingpublished. I whichthesocialisation intothis type of intaining permanent communication lised after 1948 on, literarymagazines andtheir e bodiesoverseeingtheliterary a constantinteractionwith common environment on ate property. SeeAnneliUte to publishingfacilities tant interactionwith 1 , meant that the (Bucure ti: şti: CEU eTD Collection 1 producer of literature,insidea available, thestate-ownedpublishinghouses. larger emphasis puton thesocialcapitalin Union, leadnotonlytoarationali creating institutionswhichcertified theappurtenan the socialactorsand type of social interactions that thecultural fi sense, thestate’sinvolvement in between thestateand option ofthehumanist intelligen informal networkofpersonalisedrelations,the upon theseinstitutions, acommonmilieu forthein of thecultural field provided, through formal institutions and theinformal networkingbased between the state andthe intellectuals. My main workings of literary institutions and thewayin I willprovide anoverall image of theway inwh the state’seditorial monopoly.” Macrea-Toma, the ascendancy of wr werethe system’sthe dysfunctionalities most of main ideal. problems,determining The a productivist adopting of area consequence prestige institutional opies, as a consequence of an author’s political or or political asa anauthor’s of consequence copies, printed the numberof regarding decisions “Dubious 3.1. The tendencyofthecommunistauthoritiesto

Networking Networking With aLittle HelpfrommyFriends negotiations theycarry. intellectuals, orthePa

centralised culturalindustrywas tsia intotheadministrative bodyrendersthestarkdifferentiation theculturalfieldshouldbeviewedasdeeplyimmersed inthe sation (intheWeberiansense)of Privilighen eld itselfdeveloped,influe gaining access totheonlypublishing facilities 1 36 Consequently,thepositio whichwecanre-conceptualise therelationship ţ rty andthesocietyempirically unsound.Inthis : TheEditorial SystemandInformal ia contention isthat thestate’s institutionalisation patronage connectionsandespeciallytheco- , 27. , 27. iter compared to the consumer, and its subordination to itssubordination and consumer, tothe iter compared ich personalised connections influenced the ce tothisprofession, suchasthe Writers’ tellectual andtheadministrative elites.The professionalize the writers’activity by determined byhiscapacityto theprofession,butalsotoa ncing andinfluenced by n of the writer, as a CEU eTD Collection by theEditorial Centreand until1977 whenformal censorshipwasabolished,bythe Committee regarding theindividualtitleswas differently andindividually,while The plancomprisedthenumber of 4 3 2 1 Ministry, being underthe directsupervision of be renamed TheCouncilforCu Centre andfurtheracknowledged bytheStateCommitteeforArtandCulturewhichin1971will being accepted withinthe annualplanofastatepublishing house,aplan drawnbytheEditorial Union wassupervisedbybothinstitutions.Atfirs with thesoleexceptionof depended upontheCentreforPublishingHouses house wasdivided intosmaller unitsinre literature. Following the decentralisationofthe bookindustryfrom 1969,themain publishing Editura pentru Literatur a competition forresources. Until1969 Romanian their accesstoeconomic means. where individual actors bargained forresources a state. Inthissense,thesituationwasnotatal gather supportforhisclai Decree No. 301/1971, art. 1. art. No. Decree 301/1971, Decree No. 301/1971, Macrea-Toma, Verdery, The wayinwhichthepublishingindustrywas organised allowedtheopportunityforsuch National Ideology National Privilighen Buletinul Oficial Buletinul ţ ia , 91-93. , 91-93. , 172. ă ms toeconomic resources and the publishing facilities Cartea Românească publishing house

lture andSocialistEducation. 108 (1971). (1971). 108 taken bythepublishinghouse, keeping inviewthemarket’s overall situation. Thedecision titlesandthenumber ofcopies gard tothetype of literature published.

l verydifferentfrom othersectorsoftheeconomy CentralCommittee andtheCouncilofMinisters. which supervisedthepu 37 which, beingthepublishi nd tried to maximise theirallocative powerand and BookDistribution(T t sight, gettingpublished implied, first of all, writers handed down theirmanuscripts tothe 3 Thelateinstitution functioned asa but italsohadtobeapproved , eachcasebeingassessed ng houseoftheWriters’ blication of Romanian he EditorialCentre) 1 offeredbythe 2 Allof them 4

CEU eTD Collection Ministers and the Central Committee, being a central institution. institution. acentral being Committee, the Central and Ministers , Buletinul Oficial , Buletinul Publications” issue. political responsibilityforitspub led toproblems ofcoordination approval. in drawingit,andtheCentralCommitteereserved aspecial commission for theplan’sfinal Front forSocialistUnity,thenewconcoctedpropag under theCouncil’scontrolweresupposedtocont house. Therepresentativesofth determining theplananditsmembers hadapreferentialstatusduetotheUnion’sownpublishing 4 3 2 1 plan wasconsiderably adjustedandreadjusted connected tovariouspatronagene plan. Assome of thewriters themselves were he/she wasdirectly interested in As thewriterwaspaidon thenumber ofcopies complex ofnegotiationinwhichtheseva process refusing a particular work: discussions regarding individual for PressandOtherPublications. http://www.asymetria.org Communist Censorship”, supposed to do the same thing, as well as the censorship; “in case a book slips, who is responsible then?.” then?.” “in slips, isresponsible casea as who same book todothe well asthe censorship; thing, supposed politically incompatible withcommunism anditisresponsib Idem. censo the meetings of ofthe one of transcript Seethe SeeDecree No. 53/1975“Regarding the Function and th Idem. 3

As MarinPreda remarks atthismeeting,the pub Thus,thebureaucraticmaze whichaccompanied each editorial plan leadto considerable The increasednumber ofinstitutionswhichtr 2

/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=711 accessed March 22,2011, 4 51(1975). approving of acertain title with a certain numberof copies implied a

usingpersonalinfluenceindete e distributionunits,theprinting lication andconsequentlyitwa or toattribution conflicts, as 1 tworks readytosupporttheirclaims topublishingfacilities,the titles ortheresponsibilityof Furthermore, theWriters’ Unionwasalsotobe consulted in

The censorship wasalso under the direct control of the Council of foreach book andnoton theactualsales volume, 38 to fit thenecessities of leading members oftheseinstitutionsor were rship bodies in Liliana Corobdca, “The Decline of the the of “The Decline Corobdca, inLiliana bodies rship ribute totheplan,whilestartingfrom 1974the rious institutionswereconstantlyinteracting. e Attributions of the Committee for Press and Other Pressand for Committee ofthe e Attributions lishing house canrefuse amanuscript becauseitis anda institutionoftheState,also hadaword le foritspublication;however, theCouncil is also ied todevise and implement the plan often

. the approval ofaworkrequired each institutioninaccepting or s notaninnocen rmining his/her place within the presses andotherinstitutions themoment. Tryingto t administrative CEU eTD Collection the plan. Which is not good.” is good.” Which not plan. the a planforeach year,but on the waythere numerous change institution transnationale l’Est à transnationale institution 4 3 2 1 funds, tripsandconferencesabroadaswellsma and publicfunding. Union; collected for eachpublished work regardless of economic resourcestothewrit Union alsoactedinawayverymuch similar to lobby forone’sclaims tostateresources. magazines orcriticalreviews thatcould either competition. Furthermore, one’schances were significantly influenced by themedium of literary house requiredgoingthrougha changed from onedaytoanother. manager orproducer triestogatherasmuch res planning describedbyMichaelBurawoyinreferen sense, theimplementation of theeditorial plan in ordertocaterforunexpectedoccurrences Repeated demands addressedto influence, made theadjustabilityofplanonemain match thedemands ofanincreasing number of 1985). Macrea-Toma, Seethe statutes ofthe Union in Macrea-Toma, MichaelBurawoy, InCornel Burtic

3 Besides theeditorial system, institutions such thetaxensuredalmost 36%ortheinstituti ă Privilighen ’s wordsashead of thecensorship “Of course, my The Politics of Production: Factory Regimes under Capitalism and Socialism Socialism and Capitalism Regimes under Factory Production: of Politics The 4 TheUnion’sLiteraryFundguaranteed ţ Idem. ia , 58-59. Further information in Lucia Dragomir, , (Paris: Belin, 2007). , (Paris:Belin, 2007).

ers. TheWriters’ Unionhaditsownfund,obtainedfrom atax the CouncilforCultureandSocial 2 Thus,being included into the editorial plan of a publishing complex processofnegotia Privilighen orforuntimely butextraordinarybooks. 39 bulwarkorundermine them, actingasaformal ources aspossible,whiletheplaniscontinuously the publishinghouses:asinstitutionsdistributing very much resembled theanarchy ofsocialist ţ ia whethertheauthor belongedornottothe s appear andsometimesthese changesare biggerthan writers, eachwiththeirparticular sphereof on’s funds,therestbeingobtainedfrom sales ller facilitiessuchassojournsintheUnion’s , 124-128. , 124-128. ce tostate socialistsystems, inwhicheach as theliterary magazines orthe Writers’ comrades, regarding comrades, the concerns ofthepublishinghouses. loans,housingfacilities,pension tion, andoutlas ist Educationwereforwarded L’Union desÉcrivains:Une editorial planthere is (London: Verso, ting aharsh 1 Inthis CEU eTD Collection Communist Party’s Central Committee] Committee] Party’sCentral Communist l’Est à transnationale institution 4 3 2 1 help ofonehisfriends,RaduCl line withtherealism shor oftheperiod.M.H.Simionescu’s through theliteraryclub oftheWriters’ Unionto tending towards more experimental styles,Euge implied thatledtohisdismissal in thesame year. for aliberalisationofthecultur and EugenBarbuwasrecognisedasoneofthel Eugen Barbu.Themagazine wasthesecondmost story inthemagazine Luceaf the literaryworld,Simionescu deferredhisliterarydebutuntil 1968when hepublishedashort communist daily, trying togainandmaintain theirposition inside andRaduPetrescu,whowere through itwouldcomeplayinthecaseofM.H.Simionescu into visibility. cultural and socialcapital forpromoting one’s the literarymagazines offeredaccesstoapublicspacethrough whichonecouldacquirethe role inthestate administration. position withintheUnionwasactuallyincludedin “houses ofcreation,”oraccesstoprivile Gabanyi, MirceaHoria Simionescu, “Cum l-am tr Ionescu-Gu Nicoleta Macrea-Toma, The strategies implied by thebureaucratic maze andthe resources necessary forcutting Literatura Literatura Privilighen şi politica Scânteia ţ a, Nomenclatorul Comitetului Central al Partidului Comunist [The Nomenklatura of the the of Nomenklatura Comunist [The Partidului al Central Comitetului Nomenclatorul ţ ia , 170. , 170. , 58-59. Fruther information in Lucia Dragomir, in Lucia Dragomir, information Fruther , 58-59. . (Paris: Belin, 2007.). . (Paris:Belin, 2007.). , andconsequentlyhavingconsiderab ărul

2 al field. It was this recognition and the political edge which it al field.Itwasthisrecognition and thepoliticaledgewhichit Similarly, aside from thefinancial retribution for eacharticle, , (Bucure 3 ă atthattime ledbyoneofthemain literarystarsofthe1950s, dat pePascal [How I Betrayed Pascal],” ă pescu, whowasalsoanacqua ti: Humanitas, 2006), 256 and Macrea-Toma, and 256 2006), şti: Humanitas, ged shops andresources foritsmembers. 40 n Barbuhadmanaged throughthemagazineand the literaryfield.Although eaders ofthenewgenerationwriterscalling promote atypeofliteraturesignificantly outof works or opinions, thus ensuring personal worksoropinions,thusensuringpersonal 4 important publicationof theParty’sNomenklatura catalogue,askey Actingasaprotecto t-story waspublishedthroughthe le possibilitiesofenteringinto intance ofEugenBarbuand Luceaf L’Union desÉcrivains:Une r fortheyoungwriters ă rul an editorof themain theWriters’Union 10 (1968). (1968). 10 Privilighen 1 Theleading ţ ia , 43. CEU eTD Collection cultural system andtheheadofComm Dumitru Popescu,oneofthemost important figures ensure aneasefuldebut. matters. As Simionescu himself enoughfriends mentions, hehad attheli a loosenetworkofrelationswith 5 4 3 2 1 publishing rightsorofficial diverse culturalprofiles,suchasConstantin informal oftheculturaladministrati networks his positioninsidetheadministra during the1970s,laggingwaybehindotherwriters that althoughSimionescu’s literaryprestigein interaction between thepolitical andthecultural elite, magazine, as themain publicationofthe capital necessary indeveloping connections withthe literary world; the editorial board of the published. who tookthetaskofpresentingtheshortstorytochief-editor. (Bucure newspaper, which showed the prestige of th invitationto provide himtext.” Iona Simu and my drawerscrammed withmanuscripts Study]” (PhD diss., University of Bucharest, 2007), 44. 2007), Bucharest, of University (PhD diss., Study]” Simionescu, Febra, Gabriela Trifescu, “Mircea Horia Simionescu - Studiu The highly-regarded journalists of “In1968,the editor chief of Idem ,

69. ti: Vitruviu, 1998), 17. isSimionescu’s 17. after This ști: Vitruviu, 1989. 1998), published diary, For M.H.Simionescu, thefactthathewasamember of 1

344. 344. Luceaf 3 Itisthis activity thatlater allo scholarships intheWest.

Scânteia ă rul tive apparatusmade him oneof thewritersandadministrative bodydealingwithcultural was Eugen Barbu. Afriend of mine, Radu Cl ț , “Interview , with Mircea Horia Simionescu”, while taking a stroll on Kisseleff Avenue … Afterwards he sent me the he sent Kisseleff… Afterwards on Avenue a stroll taking while were instructed toensurethe presen e profession.SeeMircea HoriaSimionescu, ittee for Socialist Educationand Culture. monografic [Mircea Horia Simionescu – Monographicmonografic Simionescu – [MirceaHoria NoicaorVirgilNemoianu inobtainingeither 41 Romanian Communist Party,allowedaclose on, allowing him to intervene for members of on, allowinghimtointerveneformembers of terms ofprofessionalca such asNicolaeBrebanorAugustinBuzura, inthe institutional scheme of thesocialist 2 andthusitguaranteedthedevelopment of 5 Fromthesame positionhewasableto wed him tobecome thesecretaryof Scânteia Within aweek, itwas already the centresofformal and ce of a writer’s signature within the ce ofa within writer’s signature ă pescu, told him about myself myself about him told pescu, pital wasnotveryhigh ensured him thesocial Flac terary magazinesto ă ra ra Febra [TheFever] 4 (2001), 64. 64. (2001), 4 4 Thatmeant CEU eTD Collection 2010), 151. The journal was published posthumously. official positionofhisfriend. circles, Radu PetrescuwasseenasM.H.Simion 6 5 4 3 2 1 the years1969and1971, Ciobanu andMariaB eased byhisposition.Throughthehelpoftwo Union, butalsootherfriends. to hisfriend,RaduCl means of institutional references for theemployee dossier. aconsiderablecould ensureM.H.Simionescu social capital tobeusedeventhrough thesimple Education andCulture,theinstitut Secretary of themost importantinstitution in emotionally, aboutMirceaHoriaSimionescu’s affectionforme.” replaced, weresuddenlysetaside difficulties withpublishing histhird book,whichsurfacedoncehisbook editoratthattime was publicly knownfriendshipcouldbeusedasan Petrescu’s roadthroughthebureaucratic jungleoftheRomani file. help RaduPetrescu inhisattempts togethis Simionescu, Simionescu, Simionescu, Febra, Petrescu, Radu Petrescu, Simionescu, Febra, 1

Similarly, attempts M.H.Simionescu’s to publish hisfirsttwobooksweresignificantly Even whenhedidnotdirectlyusehisinfl Pentru buna, Febra, Febra, Pentru buna utilizare a timpului liber [For the Proper Use of Free Time] ( FreeTime] of Use the Proper [For liber timpului a utilizare buna Pentru 114. 114. 114. 221. 221. 115. 183. 183. ă ă nulescu, hewasabletoeasilyincludethesebooks intotheeditorialplanof pescu, inhisattempt to become amember oftheRoma 6 sothatthedebutinBarbu’smag 5

3 Toacertain extent, this impressionwasindeed justified: as when theneweditor,AdrianAnghe ion’s prestige andthedirect cont second novelpublishedor 42 cultural matters, the Committeefor Socialist escu’s protégé,enjoyingthehelpoffered bythe important andinfluen institutional passport. uence orhisfunctioninordertoeaseRadu 4 Inthiswayhewasabletopayback azine wassoonfollowedbyhisfirst 2 Similarly, within theliterary an publishinghouses,their act withthe Party’s officials lescu, “startedtotalk,very tial bookeditors,Mircea in clearinghispersonal Thus, RaduPetrescu’s nian Composers’ Pite ti: Paralela 45, şti: Paralela45, CEU eTD Collection 3 2 1 appear asaconsequenceofhisrelationtoone years. added thecriticalacknowledgment ofsome impor awarded byArge amongst theliterarycriticsofperiodorthrough literaryprizes.For thisreason theprize is whySimionescuwasalsoforcedtogather easily encourage accusations ofusinginstitutional means gettingpublic for recognition, bulwark hispositioninsidethefi Simionescu heldcouldalsobeconsideredadr attached topeer-recognition.Ontheotherhand,important in from theautonomous campofthe signature ofimportant writersa autonomisation from centralcontrol.Asaconsequence, that theyobtained the righttooffer literature the magazines from Bucharest, leftprovinc context oftheperioditssymbolic prestigewasve prize oftheprovincialmagazine [General Bibliography]. book publications: readily attacked pursuing a balance between various literary. various between a balance pursuing by Theses July afterthe literarysphere the within rtance itsimpo maintain to tried publication provincial the how This was the case with Simionescu’s superior, P Dumitru superior, This was the case with Simionescu’s This was also the casein Trifescu, In amanner verymuch similar toM. H.Simionescu’s case, RaduPetrescu’s debutwill Mircea Horia Simionescu, ș ul Dic wasatthatmoment stepingainingrecognition,towhichit animportant with magazines such as ţ ionar onamastic[OnomasticDictionary], Ashortwhileafterhis

nd critics: therefore th 46; alist of the prizes offered by the magazine in the period 1971-1974 shows Arge eld. Beingahighmember ofth literary fieldand,hence,itbor ş ul. 1 Echinox, Dialog, Amfiteatru. Echinox, Dialog,

Although theprizemight nowseem marginal,inthe ial magazines withconsiderable leeway. of thewell-established me 43 thesymbolic capitalcoming from recognition prizes wasan important stepinthe magazine’s opescu who, after partially loosing his high position highwas his position after partially loosing opescu who, awback inhisattempttogathersupportand first bookappeared,her ry significant: theregime’s attempt tocontrol tant aestheticist criticsduringthe following e prize wastheofficialrecognition coming Arge ş ul e culturaladministration could

stitutional positionthatM.H. e withitthesymbolic capital hadmanaged togarnerthe and Bibliografiageneral mbers ofthecommunist eceived theliterature 2 Thefact 3 andthat ă

CEU eTD Collection 5 4 3 2 1 with thenewgenerationofyoungwriters ca authors notbeingsubsidized 1960s, themagazine’s autonomy desirewasmoreconspicuousonceit refusedstatefunding,its magazine theoldleftist avant-garde of theinterw of themost classical socialist realism. Being examples oftheworking-class’ literarycreation, Petrescu’s neo-modernist short-story,forinst a ratherawkwardjuxtapositionof hard-linele Communist Party,MironRaduPa publication enjoyedthepoliticalsupport oftw supplement ofthelargermagazine political relationsincreatingoneofthemost despite hisincreasinglyshakyposit 1950s beingpresentedasoneofthemost importa to hispolitical allegiance intheinterwar period importantly the members of theOniricGroup . important launchingpadforsome oftheyoungbut was side-linedinthe1960s,Miro Petrescu’s first short-story Sărutul[The Kiss] gradually grewdisappointedinthepost- literary circles,MironRaduParaschivescu. Gheorghe R Ţepeneag, Dumitru RaduPetrescu, “S RaduPetrescu, “Interview,” Idem. Idem. ă dulescu andManea M ă rutul [The Kiss],” Momentul Oniric [The Oniric Moment] Moment] [The Oniric Momentul Oniric Vatra fortheircontributions.

2 (1974), 8. ă neascu; Gabanyi, Povestea vorbii raschivescu’s acquaintances. n Radu Paraschivescu’s magazinen RaduParaschivescu’s ion withinthe cultural establishment, hewasable touse his Ramuri 1 , basedintheprovincialto war period,MironRaduParaschivescupublished Knownasanoldinterwarmember ofthePartywho 2 5 (1966), 4. 5 (1966), Literatura Literatura inasmall publicationledbyhimself. Althoughhe 3 44 independentpublicationoftheperiod;beinga Paraschivescu enjoyed a privileged position: due ance, appearedonthesame pagewithsome an attempt togather withinthepages of the dedicatedtotheCommuni ar periodandthenewavan ftist attitude andlite he hadaconsiderable political capital, inthe (Bucure lling for liberalisati o of the most important members of the o ofthemostimportant members ofthe nt writersofthenewregime. Consequently, peripheral writerswhom hesupported,most 5 Hispolitical capital aswell his relation şi politica şti: CarteaRomâneasc ă 4 , 160. Thepublication’strademark was

wn ofCraiova, thesmall rary nonchalance:Radu Povestea Vorbii wasan on made MironRadu t-garde writers of the st Party,inthestyle , 1997), 250. , 1997), CEU eTD Collection (1968), listed in the bibliography etc. bibliography the listedin (1968), (1969); “Ora (1969); 3 2 1 Damian, editorofRomâniaLiterar the daythatmight vouchsafeforhim infrontof editors ofthemagazines, asmuch lobbying forthepublicationofhisworks:itstrengthened therelationships any oftheculturalstateorganisationsperiod, which bythattime hadalready been written: for process ofhisbooks. some of theleading literary magazines oftheperiodwaspr volume RaduPetrescumade gooduseofthispossi would beratherdiffidenttoward the possibilityofpublishingonceagaininlite first novel, Cartea RomâneascăthatgotRaduPetrescuincludedwithin opportunities forpublication.ItwasParaschive within thehierarchy of peer-r defy thepartythroughhispublicdeclarations. awkward position, asapolitical activist turnedinto Paraschivescu oneofthemost important critics of theParty’s cultu “Chronological Table,”in Petrescu, Vegetables Production ( [Running],” Radu Petrescu maintained positio his Petrescumaintained Radu time atthis Via articlespublished are:“Drumuri the Some [Roads],” of He was Party’smostone the of importantcritics cultural matters. in Inconspicuous astheymight haveseemed, th ş Via Matei Iliescu ul inefabil[The Ineffable Town],”România Literar ţ a Româneasc Institutul de cercetari pentru valorificare legumelor legumelor valorificare cercetaripentru de Institutul 2 Most of the articles wereactuall Mostofthearticles . ă 6 (1968); “Mic (1968); 6

Pentru buna Pentru n of secretary in Researchn ofsecretaryin The Institu ecognised writers,whileproviding him withthe institutional s thisopportunity,butinthey asitcreatedacertainpopularityamongst th ă, ensured himthepossibility topublishrather regularly inthe , 375. , 375. ă enciclopedie[ASmall Encyclopaedia],” 45 1 Hishelpcouldeasily a personwhowasnotprofessionally affiliated to rary magazines ofthetime. M.H.Simionescu scu’s influencewith the editorialofficials. aliberalcriticthatParaschivescumanagedto bility, astheprestigegainedbyworkingfor ese literarydebutsensuredforbothauthors ă

3 2 (1968); “Statui [Statues],” [Statues],” “Statui (1968); 2 this wasoneof thefew solutionsin y partsofhisforthcoming twobooks, the editorial plan of 1969 with his theeditorialplanof1969withhis te the for Development ofFruits and ears precedinghisfirstpublished one tospeedupthepublication şi afructelor. ţ ral policies. Itwas from this a Româneasc in thepublishinghouse introduce RaduPetrescu His connectionwithS. ) See AdelaPetrescu, ) withsome ofthe Via e literarycirclesof ă România Literar ţ 5 (1967); “Fuga “Fuga (1967); 5 a Româneasc ă 10 ă

3 CEU eTD Collection Luceaf Symbols],” and [Affinities simboluri of hisarticlesfor fact thatheacceptedto express The importance ofthesecontributionsinbolsteri reference to generalevents such as the Writers’ important debates ofthe period,his contribution advertise hisbooksaswellcr mentioned in hisjournal,theregu 6 5 4 3 2 1 autonomy thatavoidedbothdirectaccepta promoted bythecommunistinstitutions: occasional with theliteraryworld,beingbasedonapolicyof autonomy andaestheticist stance, compromises foranauthor whos direct referencetohiscontemporaries’ works, through theinformal meetings hehadwithvarious his books,reviewsthatwillbolst er hisprofessionalstatus. Nicolae Manolescu,MirceaIorgulescu, LucianRaicuorFlorinMugurwillpublish reviewsof magazine, and throughRemus Luca Florin Mugur: “Seriozitatea surâsu “Seriozitatea Mugur: Florin Macrea-Toma, “R Therearetwo telling exception: areview of one of Costache Olareanu’s books and one ofhis chief book-editor Seetheir articles the in bibliography. Petrescu, Petrescu, ă d ă ă cinile încrederii [Roots of Trust],” ofTrust],” [Roots încrederii cinile 46 (1976); “Solidaritate [Solidarity],”Luceaf 46 “Solidaritate (1976); rul Pentru buna, 87. Pentru buna, 119. Privilighen Luceaf ţ 157. ia, 157. ărul . 5 lui [The Seriousness ofSmile]”

Thesearticles,whichcouldeasily România literar România eate networkconnectionswith his supportforthepath followedbySocialistRomania in some lar visitstothe offices of the e culturaland socialcapital Luceaf were neverthelessnecessary 1 hiscontributionswillappearin ă 12 (1977); “Imn (1977); 12 patriei[Hymn Homeland],” for rul the nce oftheregime downrightdissent. and ă

50 (1978). ă 46 rul Congress or various problems ofliteraryhistory. 4 ng hisprofessionalstatusisalsoprovenbythe will neverthelessbesought oranydirectinvolvement insome ofthe 50 (1977). 50 (1977). editorial boards.Largelyavoidinganysortof ideologicalexchange thatwassuccessfully official supportinexchangeforanaesthetic Via ț 3 a Româneasc Partofthissupportwasgathered variouscriticsandwriters. literary magazines allowedhim to relied exactlyonhispolitical have beenregardedaspolitical in maintaining hisconnection ă

Via 10 (1970) and “Afinit ţa Româneasc afterespeciallyin 6 The person person The 2 Soon ă. As ăţ i şi CEU eTD Collection Valeriu Râpeanuaboutthecase. and member oftheWriters’ Union,whotalkeddi of themagazine. central magazine oftheWriters’ Union,themiddle linkbeingagainNicolaeManolescu,editor within theeditorialplan,through Similarly, intheirattemptstohelp 5 4 3 2 1 without anyinstitutionalappur also triedtogetŢ Similar attempts weremade byMateiC being hisownbook-editor.HersupervisorLuci publishing house,MariaB called intheperiod’sparlancewereaddressedby connections. Besidesthe publication withinalite Nicolae Manolescu,whowassupposedtowrit Simionescu firsttriedtowritean claim topublishingrights.TryinghelpRaduPetrescupublishhisthirdnovel,M.H. Group undertheprotectionofMironRaduParaschivescu,SânzianaPop,editor who contactedhim inrelationto thesearti Petrescu, Petrescu, Petrescu, Petrescu, Idem . The attempt topublishTudor Obtaining supportthroughliterarypresswas Pentru buna, 127. Pentru buna, 168. Pentru buna, 185. Pentru buna, 135. 3

opa acceptedintheeditorial ă nulescu but also by M. H. Simionescu whoknewMs.B nulescu butalsobyM.H.Simionescu

tenance thatmight haveeasedhisroadtopublication, 5 overview of his activity and thencontacted animportant critic, thehelpofLeonidDimov theyfirsttriedtopublishhim inthe RomulusZaharia, important member oftheEditorial Central, anothermember ofthegroup, Tudor ă Ţ linescu, animportant youngcriticof1960s’generation opa makes clearsome oftheworkingsinformal cles was actuallyaformer member ofthe plan.Without beingactive 47 Radu Petrescutooneof rectly tothedirector an Cursaruwasalsocontactedbythetwo. e anotherreviewofhispublishedprose. rary magazine, “interventions”astheywere another important wayoflobbyingforone’s ofthepublishinghouse, in theliterarypressand thebook-editorsof Ţ opa, tobeincluded Luceaf ă nulescu, ărul Ţ Oniric opa’s . 1

4 2

CEU eTD Collection liberalising group of of group liberalising Report, regarding itsindependencefrom thePartyline. trajectory. By awardingittoan under anincreasingpressurefrom thePartyoffici The prizehadasymbolic significanceasitappe Onomastic Dictionary,in1970RaduPetrescuwasawardedtheWriters’ Unionprizefordebut. andRaduPetres H. Simionescu important members literaryestablishment ofthe 5 4 3 2 1 aestheticist camp andduetotheirrelations withMironRaduParaschivescu, they werealso 1970 and1971respectively.Moreover,asboth ofth prize, arepresentative of thenew Paraschivescu’s latestdiscovery played animportantpartinthischoice.Apartfr Paraschivescu, oneofthemost vociferoussuppor intervention ofMarinPreda,andvery soonhewasaccepted asamember oftheUnion. House, waspublishedin1975attheWriters’ In theendhisfirstbook,afterhaving marginal position made him dependsolelyupontheinformal means oflobbyingforpublication. Onehis of staunch supportersfor awarding prize the wa FreeEu Radio the that appellation isthe This this issue. Iwilldiscuss 4where Chapter Seealso Petrescu, Tudor accessed May 22,2011,http://www.osaarchivum.orgaccessed opa, Ţopa, The firstoftheirbooksandthesupportthat Soon bothM.H.Simionescu andRaduPetrescu became full members ofthe Union,in Pentru buna, 43. Încercarea scriitorului [The Writer’s Trial] Writer’sTrial] [The scriitorului Încercarea writers. See Petrescu, Petrescu, writers. See

aestheticistnon-politicalnovel,th cu. IfSimionescu receivedthe 4 made him, aswellEmil Brumaru, theotherrecipientof generation ofliberalisingwriters. Pentru buna Pentru waitedforfiveyearsatRâpeanu’s rope research report onthe Congress called him: , 88. 48 s Alexandru Ivasiuc,that s Alexandru by 3 ared in amoment whentheWriters’ Unionwas (Pite om theliterarystyle ofhisnovel,statusas RaduPetrescu’sconnectionwithMiron soon ledtoanincrease als tolineupwithamore politicallyobedient /files/holdings/300/8/3/pdf/51-4-199.pdf. Union publishinghouse,throughthedirect ters oftheautonomy ofliterary institutions, ti: Paralela 45, şti: Paralela45, 2001), 8. em wereperceivedasbelongingtothe they receivedfrom someofthemost Arge e Unionalsomade astatement 5

ş ul timeanother member ofthe prizeforhisfirstnovel, in prestigeforbothM. Eminescu RFE Background Publishing 1

2

CEU eTD Collection 2 1 committees, researchinstitutes etc.Thecentr at hand forobtaining anysort ofemploy of thehumanist intelligentsia, most of thewriters dependedonthecultural institutions thatwere connection betweeninstitutionalstru getting intotheeditorialplanandthusofbe and theirmembers. InwhatIdescribedearlier th were definedthroughtheirrelations relations whichallowedRaduPetrescuandM.H.Simionescu elite intothe administrative bodyofculturalin maintaining one’spositionwerealsomade possibl plan. number ofcopies(54,000),due the bookappearedimmediately second editionof membership wereimmediately visibleinthewa to bethemostindependentinstitutionwithinUnion. fifth column, theCouncil,dueto elected intheUnion’scouncil. Petrescu, Macrea-Toma, 3.2. 2

The formal andinformal negotiations necessary

Intellectual andAdministrativeE Pentru buna, Privilighen Matei Iliescu 163. 163. ţ 68. ia, 68.

: farfrom requiringanyprolonged in thepopularcollectionof Unlike theUnion’sBureau,whic theanonymouselectionsselectin to thepressureonpublishing hip totheofficialinstituti ctures andtheintellectual elit ing published.Oneofthereasonsforthisintimate lites withinStateInstitutions 49 ment: academic libraries,magazines, cultural y inwhichRaduPetrescumanaged topublishthe alisation andthemutual dependency upon stitutions. Thekindof networksof informal e main issueofdebate e because of theco-option of theintellectual for enteringintothe literaryfieldand for Romance Novels 1 Theadvantagesofferedbythe ons allottingeconomic resources to lobbyforeconomicresources h wasperceivedastheparty’s g itsmembers, wasconsidered e isthefactthat, asmembers negotiations withtheeditors, housetofulfil was thepossibilityof and inanenormous its editorial CEU eTD Collection 2 1 novelist andapoet;oncehispolitical besides being thedirector of themostimportant cultural institution in thecountry wasalsoa elite withinthebureaucraticadministration. Sim Remus Guga).M.H.Simionescu himself isaperf administrators, some ofthem w Simionescu andRaduPetrescu’s roadtopublication werewritersaswell ascultural Paraschivescu andalltheotherpersons thatI Zaharia, RemusGuga,Alex the stateapparatusdealingwithculturalmatters delimitation betweenthetwogroups,asmost ofth intellectuals claim. cultural and thebureaucratic one, assome of officials wasnotaltogether a writers also heldinstitutional functions, so members of theintelligentsia andthose of thecultural administration. Restaurant orprivileged access totheUnions’libraryreinforced therelationship betweenthe even the type of activities pertaining tothe day- employees, the members of theintelligentsia shared activity ofthecountry,meant that Printing orTheCouncilforCulture overarching stateinstitutions, located inBucharest, suchasThe GeneralDirectorate of Pressand Katherine Verdery included. Macrea-Toma, The institutionalisation of theliterary profession increasingly meant thatmost of the Privilighen 2 Therelationship wasmore intricat ţ 62. She discusses here some of the privileges enjoyed the membersby ofthe Union. enjoyed privileges somethe of here She discusses ia, 62. andru Anghelescu,MariaB

ith importantfunctions within to dialogue betweendifferentsecti andSocialistEducationwhich institutionally,evenif theyweresimple andunimportant prestigewaslostattheendof1970s,he forbidden that thecommerce betweenthewritersand 50 ilarly, hisimmediate superior,Dumitru Popescu, to-day praxis, suchasthemeals attheUnions’ werethemselvesculturalproducers.Romulus mentioned earlierand whofacilitated M.H. ect example oftheco-option oftheintellectual thestudiesfocusingonEasternEuropean e individualsholdingadmi acommon institutional milieu. Inthissense, ă e anditdidnotdependonastrict nulescu, SânzianaPop,MironRadu p institutions(RomulusZaharia, ons oftheintelligentsia: the supervised the entire cultural supervised theentirecultural 1

nistrative officesin CEU eTD Collection http://www.rom became theheadofwriters’organisation. Romanian ambassadortotheU.K.andU.S.as been theGeneralSecretaryofMinistry GeorgeMacovescu,presiden common practice. political elite.Thus,thetransitionfrom other part oftheofficialNomenklatura andsothos Săpt Amfiteatru, Echinox,Dialog as camp itssystem ofnetworkrelations:whiletheae battles fromthe1970swereusuallyidentifiedw changes affectingtheeditorialboard.Moreover, as in their political impact. Changes inthe Party’ 3 2 1 any publicdebate:theirimportan administrators withenormousallocativepower,as literary magazines were similarly members of theintellectual elite,asmuch ascultural house, wassimultaneously acritic of theStateTelevisionand,duringlastperiodregime, ofthe to publishanythingelsebesidespoetry. Dominor, 2007). Dominor, 2007). (Bucure Ion Simu Macrea-Toma, Seehis book of interviews: Too] Chimeras Carver of a Dumitru [IWas dehimere şi cioplitor Popescu,eu fost Am România Literar ămâna, Flac ti: Expres, 1993). 1993). şti: Expres, As Ialreadymentioned thetoppositionswithin ţ , “Un comunist onest [An Honest Communist],” lit.ro/un_comunist_onest Privilighen ăra. ă,

ţ 48. ia, 48. Via ţ a Româneasc , theanti-aestheticistsmonopo

ce wasreflectednotsomuch in ; seealsohis diary: George Macovescu, and aculturallite 1 ValeriuRâpeanu,directorof ă and,lateron,inprovincialmagazines suchas 3 Information inthefirstcommunistgovernment, Ontheotherhand,writersthemselves could 51 e occupyingthem werepartofthecommunist t oftheWriters’ Unionfrom 1978to1982,had institutional realms tothecultural field wasa thecamps wagingthe mostimportant cultural ith specificmagazines whichensuredforeach s cultural policies were usually reflected inthe stheticists usuallypublishedinmagazines such afteralltheyprovided România Literar well asMinister ofFore theWriters’ Unionwereconsideredtobe rary historian.Thechief-editorsofthe lised magazines suchas ă theirofficialeconomic status

36 (2007),accessed May 21,2011, theEditorialCommission, Jurnal [Journal] the spacenecessary for Eminescu ign Affairsbeforehe Luceaf publishing (Bucure ărul, şti: 2

CEU eTD Collection 3 2 1 followed byasecondrunof90,000couldbeexplained excellence. Thedecision topublish a certaindecisionwas taken,onaccount ofanadmi Toma callsthewriterasapublicofficer. a conflationofadministrative functionsandcu administrative oneortheinterestshownbybur be interested intheproduction of literature. Th or IonDoduB to administrate thecultural field. Atthesame literary world:hiscontacts withthewriters’gu secretary wasalsothenetwork ofinformal conn gratification. international context, the intellectuals provided regime obsessed withcultural excellence and withtheroleof theRomanian culture inan who wereabletoassess andevaluate theappr relations necessaryinoverseeingsuchanimportant the cultural field, asafter all the intellectuals Committee. become important members ofthe politicalesta obsession about the place of Romanian Toma, Macrea-Toma, The 1970s attemptmake to Romania animportant player This was the case with Eugen Barbu, Nicolae Breban, D.R. Popescu, Aurel Baranga, Valeriu Râpeanu: Macrea- Privilighentia, Privilighentia, This ledtoalotofdebatesamongst Romani the an intelligentsiaasitwashardtosayhow To acertain extenttheregime wasforcedto 1

Privilighen 2 ă One of the reasons why Dumitru Popescu chose M. H. Simionescu ashis PopescuchoseM.H.Simionescu OneofthereasonswhyDumitru lan’s cases show,thebureaucraticelitede 45. ţ ia , 31.

culture ina global context; Verdery, Delirul [Delirium] 3

time, andasDumitru Popescu,RomulusZaharia, 52 ild wasnecessary inDumitruPopescu’s attempts opriateness andthevalu in international relations, was also followed by an an by also followed was relations, international in couldprovidetheknowl themeans to attain thisimportant symbolic ections thatSimionescu alreadyhadwithinthe e co-optionof theintell ltural productioncreatingwhatIoanaMacrea blishment, beingaccepted withintheCentral eaucrats intheliterary socialspace. Furthermoretheywere the ones nistrative reasonor simply because ofliterary use the intellectual elite inordertomanage byMarinPredain either asaresultof aling with cultural matters could itself aling withculturalmatters coulditself National Ideology e ofone’swork.Fora production oftenledto ectual elitewithinthe 30,000copies,later edge and thesocial thefactthatitwas , 182. CEU eTD Collection Privilighen and assuperfluous interventions his considered she editor 4 3 2 1 was sohighly seen by thewriters that whenDumitru Popescu,the offshoot ofthebook-editor’sopinions. permanent discussion:were theya contact with differentinstitutions, the decision were writers themselves decisions ofthecensorsoradmini in thepersonalconnectionofbookeditorasmu publishing, thecensorship,EditorialCommissionetc.Theimportance ofthefunctionrelied communication andthecirculationofinformation be unpublishable etc.Thebookeditoractedasanimportant middle linkwhichensuredthe the author,takingdecisioninexcerptingce discussions withhis/her manuscript andsuperviseitspublicationafterwards. Thiscomprised the be observed wastheofficeofbook editor:thepersonwho wassupposedtoread,accepta leaving othergroupsoutsidetheadminist the monopolisations ofmanagement functionsby such astheoneconcerningpr house whichhadissuedthebook. one ofthebest-sellersth Maria Graciov, Florin Mugur, Maria B Maria Mugur, Florin Graciov, Maria In her memoirs Floren a Petrescu’s tobooks, Radu limit ourselves Ifweareto Verdery, Toma, Privilighen One ofthemostconspicuouswaysinwhichth National Ideology, National ț ia , 276. ţ ia , 186. ţ a Albu, complains about Florin Mugur’s interventions in her texts; although he was her inbook texts; although her FlorinMugur’sinterventions about a complains Albu, 209-215. 3 superiors inthepublishinghouse,with orhadgainedanimportant placeintheliteraryworldthroughtheir e period, orbecauseMarinPreda wastheheadofpublishing

ă

nulescu. nulescu. 1 strative bottlenecks. But as some of themost important editors Some ofthemostimportant id otochronist camp,reliedimplicitlyonaccusationsdirectedat result of a real debatewith the 4 Theimportance ofthisoffi rative benefitsthatonemight enjoy. s concerning some articlesorbookswereundera 53 ll of his book editors were also writers: Ioana Andreescu, Andreescu, werealsowriters:Ioana editors book his ll of not asapartofthecensoring system. SeeMacrea-Toma, rtain passagesthatmight havemade thebook some ofthe members tween differentinstitutions,startingwiththe ch asinhis/hertalenttocircumvent certain is dualroleoftheintellectual/writercould thecensors,actingonbehalfof eological debatesoftheperiod, censoring authoritie ce inthepublishingindustry head oftheCultural manuscript’s editing, of theintelligentsia, 2

s orjustan CEU eTD Collection 6 5 4 3 2 1 returned thisfavour. editorial skills,butalso througharticlespublishe subsequent editorattheWriters’ Union publ works withintheRomanian sectionofRadioFreeEurope. within theBucharest lite first twobooksandawriterherselfbecame an ensure theirspeedypublication. Simionescu publishedhisfirsttwobooks,shewasable the most important writersof the to includeTudor mentioned earlier,MariaB getting publishedwithoutbeingforcedtoaccept his competence innegotiating with other official subordinates. increasing powerthattheeditors haveaswe and animportant member of the cultural elite, him from doingthat. without themiddle linkofthebook-editor,most of Committee wantedtoabolishitand leavethenego (1993). (1993). Seethe letterexchange between thetwo rega Radu Mugur, lui Florin “Jurnalul Pe Simionescu, Simionescu, Notebooks] Editor’s [An MirceaSântimbreanu, editor de Caiete Simionescu, Febra , Febra, Febra, 2 Oneofthereasonswasthatsocial capital thatthebook-e 339. 339. Ţ 306. 306. 221. opa’s bookintheeditorialplan.Beingwifeof 6 1 MirceaSântimbreanu, al rary circles.Lateron,whenmoving toParisshealsopopularisedtheir ă nulescu, M. H. Simionescu’s editor nulescu, M.H.Simionescu’s

trescu [Radu Petrescu’s Journal],” 3 SimilarlyIoanaAndreescu,th period andeditorofthemagazine rding Petrescu’sreview mentioned earlierin important supporter important ofthe members ofthe ishing housesupportedhim notonlythroughhis 54 though directoroftheAlbatros also mentions theimpossi d inthecentralpress, ll asthe constanthassle withsome of his tiations between the writerandtheinstitutions institutions increased awriter’s chancesof major changes tohis/hermanuscript. AsI thewritersprotested (Bucure toavoidsome oftheeditorialjams and Arge ti: Amarcord, 2000), 48,52. 48,52. Amarcord, 2000), şti: 4 FlorinMugur,RaduPetrescu’s e book-editorofRaduPetrescu’s ş proved essential in his attempts proved essentialinhisattempts 1 (1972). (1972). 1 5 whileRadu Petrescu also Ş Luceaf tefan B tefan bility ofavoidingthe and triedtodissuade ditor had,aswell ărul publishing house ă Manuscriptum Manuscriptum nulescu, oneof when M.H. School 1-4 1-4

CEU eTD Collection 1 the culturalsphere. employment opportunities,including,inthismanne from thehomogenouscharacterofintellectu springs asmuchfrom thenecessity Dumitru Popescu.Consequently,thisdependenceupon Party thatfancied aninterest inliterary matte publishing houses)wasopenedasmuchforthewr ladder. The literary public sphere, includingitsinstitutional elements (magazines, journals, still depended very much onitspolitical allegi value of thepolitical capital Thesituation wasevenmorecomplicatedin Romania astheprofe administrative bodythathadbeenstartedinother humanist intelligentsia and thetechno constant contact between thepolitical elite a no otheraccesstopublishingfacili members oftheintelligentsia wereobligedtobe of thewriters’bodymade theexiste Eyal,Szelényi, and Tonswley, This conflationofdifferentfunctionsandrole

Making Capitalism, Capitalism, Making 1 hadbeenputtoahaltin1971.Consequently,thebureaucraticelite

ofresortingtoclientelismin nce ofalternativecu ties. But,asIhavealready mentioned, italsotriggereda cratic onedifficulttopin-point. 65. 65. nd theculturalone,maki ance to the Partyinadvancing onthe institutional 55 rs, such as M. H. Simionescu’s directsuperior rs, suchasM.H.Simionescu’s al milieu oncethestatehadmonopolised allthe employed in official cultural institutions, with countries, andwhichhadledtoadecreasein iters as,insome cases,formembers ofthe r, thewritersinadministrative bodyof s, aswelltheadministrative organisation the officialliterarycultureofperiod ltural practicesverydifficult,oncemost order togetpublished,asitdoes ng thedifferencebetween ssionalisation ofthe CEU eTD Collection 1 previous sub-chapterIdescribed how,evenin patronage relationshipsandnetworksofacquain was doneasmuch byformal means suchasec common environment inwhichtheyacted.Within similar totheformal institutions, reinforced not onlybyformal stateinstitutions,butalso in allsocialistsystems. Tonswley remarked, theimportance of political cap Simionescu stillinfluenced their position withinthe cultural system. AsEyal,Szelényiand configuration of powerwithinthesystem: the particular individual,as in theirownstand.Thisdoesno elite couldalsogetinvolvedin intellectuals couldholdimportant administrative functions withinthesystem, whilethepolitical political elite increasingly vague. The twogro the institutionalunderpinningofth the intellectual elite and the politi of thecultural fieldhad asconsequenceanin Eyal,Szelenyi andTonswley, 3.3. The close relationship between the intelligentsia andthe administrative elitewasensured As partial conclusion to thischapter Iwanttopointoutthat thestate’sinstitutionalisation

Some Conclusions 1

thecultural capitaland thepolitical onestill determined thespecific Making Capitalism, Making Capitalism,

the intellectualdebatesofpe t erasethe differenceinallocativ cal one.Furthermore, theco-optionof theintelligentsia within e culturalspheremade thedis 22. 22. creased inter-dependence the case ofM.H.Simionescu andRadu Petrescu, the relationship between thetwoelitesand 56 difference betweenDumitru PopescuandM.H. ups were active in the same environment and tances lobbyingforaccesstoresources.Inthe onomic planningasbyacomplex networkof by networks of informal relationshipswhich, by networksofinformal ital, despite itsupsand downsstillprevailed the cultural fieldthe allocation ofresources tinction between riod oractascu e power orinthestatusofa and interaction between ltural producers intellectual and CEU eTD Collection protochronist the S writers to protochronist 1 networks. claims eitherthroughthein camp, althoughlaggingbehindinterms ofresources, was abletogatherthesupportof the peer-recognitionwhichitimplied was animportant recommendation forpublication.Thepublicsphereofliterarymagazines and Raicu) belonged tothe aestheticist camp andthesy some ofthemostimportant criticsoftheperi for hiseditorialodyssey.Similarly, asM.H. through itsCouncil. from theParty, theUnionhadmanagedtosu for publishingfacilities. TheWriters’ Unionstatus andRaduPetrescu’sexamplesH. Simionescu showthesecouldbeemployed inordertopressure aestheticist camp alsohadaccessto Party’s linewerenotaltogether aestheticist camp andingeneral patronage networkscanreinforcethecultural circumventing thebureaucraticjungle andeas magazine editors andcensors(RemusGuga)as despite theirmarginal placewithin thefield, theirconnection with otherwriters,bookor Accusations against the “monopolisation” of the Writers’ “monopolisation” the against Accusations A secondconclusiontobedrawn 1 RaduPetrescu’s membership inth ecretary General. SeeMocanu,

stitutional semi-autonomy of excludedfrom literarymark the the rightcritics those whoseliteraturedidnot institutional resources,despit could beusedasameans for is thattheimportance ofin od (NicolaeManolescu,Mir ed theiraccesstopublishing facilities. Simionescu andRaduPetrescu’sexamplesshow, 57 Union publishing house were constantly addressed by the capital.Thismeans that,forinstance,the stain aconsiderable i Scriitorii Scriitorii well astheirofficial positionhelped them in at therighttime. Inth is acaseinpoint:despite thepressure coming mbolic prestigethattheirreviewsbestowed could neverthelessgathersupportfortheir e Unionwasofsignificantimportance şi puterea, the Union orthroughpersonal the Union et. Some of themembers ofthe e theirmarginal position.AsM. lobbying forresources,ifone 101, 102, 108. 108. 102, 101, necessarily comply with the formal relationshipsandof ndependence especially is sensetheaestheticist cea Iorgulescu, Lucian CEU eTD Collection had managed tomonopolise literaryins within the literaryfieldwereverymuchaccusa 4 3 2 1 between bureaucraticallocation and personalised di a mechanism ofdistribution a simple remnant of traditional systems of social mechanism of allocation that could correct, deform centralised allocationofresourcesdonebythe further generalisationof thepe considerable shrinkageatthe system. bureaucratic andpoliticalelitewerealsot members of theUnion: thosewith considerable appreciations wereright, editorial plan and the constant competition of institutional relationship wasdocumented asmuchbythewriters whofelt excluded from the to 1.7%, registering the lowest level in the last in 1.7%, lowestlevel to registering the European in the collection edited by Marin Radu Mocanu, and the wayin which“the magazine angrywith oligarchy embittered toan but toallwritersanymore, notbelong does Union If in 1950 the funding for cultural activities made for 5.6 % of the public budget, in 1980s the percentage dropped dropped the percentage in 1980s budget, the public for5.6 % of made activities cultural for the funding Ifin 1950 MacreaToma, Alexandra Tomi Inalettertowards Nicolae Ceau The usageofinformal relationswas notal The term “informal networks”can bedeceptiveasitpoints outtoastarkcontrast 3 ă Theseinequalitiesfurtherin , 2006). 2 asbytheauthorities themse Privilighen ţă , Oistorie glorioas ț ia, ia, leadingtoanincrea 147, 155-157. 155-157. 147, şescu, “agroup ofwriters” raisesthesome

end ofthe1970sandduring1980s România Literar economic andsymbolic resources. rsonal networksofpatronage. ă requirements forlastmoment [A Glorious History] ( creased oncethefundingfor yearofthe regime, 0.6 %. See Macrea-Toma, titutions such asthe Writers’ Union. Scriitorii Scriitorii lves, whowereconsiderably ă

hose whomanaged tomonopolise the editorial has become the property of its chief-editor” the document is is thedocument itschief-editor” property of the has become sing socialandeconomic inequalitybetweenthe 58 tions pitted atthewayinwhichcertaingroups şi puterea [The Writers and the Power] interaction, personalised networks functioned as political capital andtightly connected tothe state, informal networksactedasasecond and interact withthe first one. Far from being Bucure stribution. However,the together something usual andthe debates şti: CarteaRomâneasc ă 4 In thissense, besides theformal issues amongst whichthe fact that“The changes.In both casesthe the cultural field suffered a the culturalfieldsuffereda : fewerresourcesledtothe disconcertedregardingthe those who do not serve it” serve not do who those 1 Thepersonalisation , 2007), 20. 20. , 2007), Privilighen series of informal series ofinformal (Bucure ţ ia , 163. , 163. ti: Ideea şti: Ideea CEU eTD Collection 3 2 1 system worked. alternative social logicinsidethe cultural field, informal interactionandpersonaliseddistribu informal networkingand theefficiencyofformal system. Mugur held,asnegotiatorsamongst variouscultu personalised connections.Inthissens to ensure both formal efficiencyand themooring was oneof theunattached members of culturalin efficiency andcutthroughthebur the informal interactions withinthe field nece permanent bottlenecks. Theplethora of institutions system therelationshipbetween where different of interaction waspart of the way inwhichthe part oftheformal systemofdistribu and personalisedinteractionswhichactedasan patronage to be constitutive toof it.” be constitutive patronage we many respects party-state, in found cultural the to or an complementary alternative been having than rather nomenklatura.” Péteri, “Introduction”, 3. communist official in securing efficiency andmaintaining his position or/and attaining advancement in the Thisisalsothe conclusion at th “Accesstosuch`informal' resources “Introduction,” Péteri, György Furthermore, asthepositionofbookeditor were thosewhichhisformal hier twins, symbiotically related. Themain resour This ispartlybecausepatronage andform 3

Contemporary European History Idem e contributors of the special issue of

as protective networks and loyal clients wasanecessary precondition for a . eaucratic jungle;the

tion itself.AsGyörgyPéteriremarks: e, thepositionbook-editorssuchMariaB archical positioncouldyield. allocativemechanism ofeconomic resources was 59 allocation wasmade possibl was constitutive of the wayinwhichthesocialist tion ofresources,farfrom representingan ssary inorder toattain stitutions whosesocial capitalallowed him/her institutions was considerably hazy andled to of officialstructures in onwhich theeditorial ral institutions,increas al communist authoritywere,likeSiamese ces thatthe communist , 11 (2002), 3. 3. (2002), , 11 book editorwith shows, thecreationofpersonalisedmodes Contemporary European History “ 2 Consequently,thelevelof 1

hisnumerous attributions informal networksand regime dependedmade acertaindegreeof e withinacentralised ed boththelevelof patron couldrelyon ă nulescu orFlorin Indeed, CEU eTD Collection orRaduPetrescutonegot M.H. Simionescu hubsof more diffusenetwork,madeofdifferent one hand,andtheintellectualsre-actingtoit,on theother,shouldbereplacedbyimage ofa sense the strictdifference between administrative controlwhich wasconstantlyunder of thestatewhereenactedbywritersthem presumed acleardifferentiationbe the image ofaculturalfieldinwhichthestate informal connectionmade asmuch of intellectuals The co-optionof theintellectual elite into aCentreofpowerrepresented tween intellectualsandthestate, iate theirposition insidethesystem. 60 was everywhere asmuch asitwasnowhere.It allocative power,whichallowedwriterssuchas mined bythoseimposing its measures. Inthis as of members of thepolitical elite,addsupto the administrative system selves; itpresumed apowerfulsystem of by thePartyorState,on whilemost ofthedecisions andthenetworkof

CEU eTD Collection 1 Following thepublicationofhisbookin1970,for inst a validcriticism ofanovel,one constraints uponthepoliticaleliteaswell th certain literary institutions aswellthe pu within thepublic sphereof However,thepossibilityofhavingvalidclaims tostateresourceswhichwouldallow one publication alsodependeduponthewayinwhich difference between theCentreandcultural producers. policies give amore detailedimage of theRoma increasingly blurry.Furthermore, thedissensions cultural institutions madethedividingline betweenadministrative andcultural elites political capital, writers andcritics as wellasth upon theliteraryproducers.Inform relationship throughwhichthepoliticalpowerpressuredcultura the literaryfield. Mymain conten way inwhichtherelationship between thepoliti InthepreviouschapterItriedtodescribe through whichtheaccesstostateresourceswaschannelledandmade possible,aswellthe 4. As one may find in Verdery, in Verdery, mayone As find

Realism Negotiations withintheLiter National Ideology, National literary magazines, booksandotherpublications.Theautonomy of

tion wasthatthisrapportshould had tolistenandabid al patronagenetworksincluding 72-98. ary PublicSphere-Talkingabout 61 blic space of thelite e co-optionofwritersintotheadministration of cal andthecultural elite withinthe politicalelite concerning cultural the various networks of informal relations thevariousnetworksofinformal relations nian literary field whileerasing thestrict e writersandthecritics.Inordertoprovide ance, RaduPetrescuwa couldlegitimise his/herliterarypractices 1 e tocertainrulesoftheliterarygame.

not beseenasaunidirectional l eliteandimpos personswithconsiderable rary magazines imposed was configuredinside s heavilycriticised ed itscontrol ed CEU eTD Collection Luptaclas de clas analysis ofthenovel. realism andmodernist literature, about theconn forced tolistenthedemands oftheliterary however, the authorofthereview,one leading members ofthe1950sliteraryelite,was lack of consideration for thesocialist realities of evolved aroundtheaestheticisttenden 2 1 to negotiatetheirpositionandacc claim thatthediscussionaboutr the chapter Iwillprovideasumm regarding thedebateaboutrealism Inwhatfollows IwilltrytoshowhowMircea HoriaSimionescu andRaduPetrescu managed tolegitimate theirposition insidethe of one’spositioninsidetheliterarylifewasdone. intervention. Itis within thelim review, criticalstudies etc.whichcouldev expressed throughinstitutionalised literarygenres public interventions of thecultural actors implie interact inacommon public Despite the political pressures of the time, the development of apublicdiscourse through whichwriters and Partyintellectuals could within the official theoretical journal of theCommunist Party, Al. I. Al.I.Ş ă 10 (1971): 41-55 and “Câteva opinii despre literaturamodern despre opinii “Câteva and 41-55 10 (1971): Ş tef tef ă ă nescu, “Câteva opinii II”,39. nescu, “Câteva opinii despre literatura modern literatura despre “Câteva opinii nescu, ă 11(1971): 36-43. 2

sphere. Differentfrom thenetw its ofthispublic space ofliterary ealist literatureallowe ess toeconomic andsymbolic reso and thereadingpublic.Inorderto and ary ofthese debates and thestak cies ofhisprose,thelack public space: his review included discussions about 62 aluate andassesstheappropriatenessof literary fieldthroughtheirpublicinterventions ă ection betweenliteratureandlifetextual thepresent. Inorder tocouch hiscriticism, I[Some Opinions on Modern Literature I],” the literary field anditspublications allowed ofpublicintervention suchas theliterary d internalstandardsof d thewritersandotherintellectualactors ă II [Some Modern Literature on II],” Opinions ork ofinformal connection,the institutions that thelegitimation Lupta declasă civicattitudeaswellhis urces. Inthesecondpartof e thattheyentailed. Iwill do that, inthe first part of social rationality, ; 1 the criticism Lupta de CEU eTD Collection Henri Lefebvre for instance and, above all, Lukacs. app Marxist the Western to relation in literature modernist și Artă 2 1 claimed that“thepreliminaryconditionforartis attempt topreservethesocialistrealistdoc from thenarrow limits as th socialist realism byincluding within itvarious fo without limits” throughwhichsome oftheRomanian This wasthecasewithDumitru Micu realist literaryproductionofthe1950s,came tobeseenas following 1963 thatredefinitions oftheterm “real Some ofthefirstsignsculturallibe attitudes regarding“realism” anditsimportancefo contain. magazines, booksandpublicinterventionsthe enduring andlong-lastinginstitutionsintrinsic to theliteraryfield:publicsphereof practices ofnegotiationsin literature. Consequentlyifthepreviouschapterhasindicatedofficial andtheinformal their avant-gardepracticeswhil the chapter Iwill further describe how M.H. Ovid S. Crohm The article appeared in 4.1. , 1960). The book, published in 1960, was interesting in as much as it put the development of Romanian of development the asmuchitput in interesting 1960, was in published book, The , 1960).

Context andDebates:RedefiningRealism ă lniceanu, lniceanu, Gazeta Literar Gazeta Pentru Realismul Socialist [For Socialist Realism] Realism] [For Socialist Socialist Realismul Pentru side state institutions, inthis chapte ey weredepictedinCrohm

ă e keepingwithinthe

25 (1963). See Gabanyi, SeeGabanyi, (1963). 25 ’s 1963discussionofRogerGaraudy’s trine ofthe1950s.After1965Congress,which Simionescu and Radu Petrescutried tolegitimate ralism inRomania wereannouncedbyreformist 63 earing after the Hungarian Revolution, heavily criticising criticising heavily Revolution, Hungarian afterthe earing rmal deviceswhichwereconsiderablydifferent tic andculturaldevelopm r asocialist literature. It wasduring theperiod ism”, whichmoved itawayfrom thesocialist social rationalitywhic writershadtriedtobroadenthelimits of i politica, şipolitica, Literatura ă lniceanu’s 1960stextbook, limits oftheofficialdiscourseabout steps towardscultura r Iwilldeal with (Bucure ş 122. 122. ti: Editura pentru Literatură ti: Editura ent isthateveryone 1 h itissupposedto notionof“realism oneofthemost 2 liberalism. l alastditch

CEU eTD Collection 4 3 2 1 1950s, focusing,inthefirstyearsafterCeau came tobeincreasingly linked withtherepression realism initspublicinterventions most staunchesspokespersonsof realism, wasthecasewithNinaCassian asit Similarly, criticism directedatthelitera dogmatism” came tobeheardevenamongst some field ofthe1950s. circles, implying achange from thetenetsof socialistrealism andthestrict control of theliterary the French regime hadtakeninthe1960s,translationsandde reference for thisinclusion. William FriedrichDürrenmatt) Faulkner, brin realism writers ofthe modernist canon(Max “Semnifica definition of realism: intoa similar direction ranarticles suchas Romul Munteanu’s experiences ofasocialistnation. socialist attempts toenlarge technically modernistnovelsstartedtobepublished, althoughtheywereagainpresentedas should freelyexpresshisownopinion” (1970). (1970). experimental literature; seefor instance Paul Anghel, “Genul confuz [The Confused Genre],” of dangers the as anexample of depicted usually being literarycircles, Romanian in controversy of will createalot The first translation of the French thewriter French Robbe-Grille Alain of firsttranslation The Gabanyi, Gazeta Literar Gazeta Idem. Literatura Literatura ţ Nouveau Roman ia realismului [TheMeaningofRealism]” ă

44 (1964).44 i politica, şi politica, 136. 136. 4 3 started toappearand bementioned within theRomanian literary Inthesame veinandasasignof thenewliberalturn thatthe

upon themeaning ofrealismso the newliberalisingtr but itshirkedfrom anyreferencesto“socialistr 2 Thisgave thewriters the 1 thediscussionaboutrealismtookanewturnas ş escu’s coming to power,ontheconceptof“stylistic escu’s coming to or withEugenJebeleanu 64 ging againRogerGaraudyasalegitimising Frisch, TennesseeWilliams,Albert Camus, andthemore authoritari bates aboutmodern Westernliterature,suchas ture ofthe1950sandth t’ work appeared in 1967: just like in France his books books Francehis in like just in 1967: appeared t’ work of theformer representativesofsocialist which triedtoinclude end. ThePartydidnotexcludetheterm thatitmay tackle thenovel possibility ofexpandingthe who became two of the twoofthe who became an penchantsfrom the e “socialistrealist underthelabelof 43 43 Contemporanul ealism” asthis CEU eTD Collection 3 2 1 consequence thateventhosewriterswhosestyle wa social life, aswell thespiritual andmoral fabric of human beings”. Writers’ Congressmentioned thenecessity ofa tendencies oftheRomanianCommunistParty, art aswell as duetothe Party’s support of realist literature. Even atthe he a symbolic prestigeasaresultofitscloseconne Theintertwiningoftheoretical to animportant trait of thesediscussions. First of all,thenotionof realism carriedout withitself developed bytheWestern Marxists. on theWestern NewLeftandthenecessityof more theoretically-minded enterprise wastheseries of articlespublished byAlexandru Ivasiuc the form ofadebateaboutthe should havewiththedevelopments theoretical debate concerning the role of (socialist)realism andtherelationship that literature about thenewwriters’attituderegardingoldguardofsocialistrealist conflict, as it appeared withinAdrianP România Literar P 1960s createdaconflic diversity” proposedatthe1965Congress.Theappear Editura Cartea Româneasc http://www.osaarchivum.org/files/holdings/300/8/3/text/51-2-216.shtml Gabanyi, AnneliMaier,“TheCultural SceneinRomania,” format:Adrian P inbook werelater reprinted They ă unescu andpublishedintheleading Literatura Literatura ă) marked one ofthemost importantst i politica, şi politica, ă , 1971). , 1971). t withtheoldguardofsocialistrea 175. 175.

role ofrealism withinRomanian 2 of asocialistnation;theinter-

debatesaboutrealism withge ă unescu’s interviews, magazines oftheWriters’ Union( RFE Background Report1970-7-20, accessed April 20, 2011, ă unescu, 65 rejuvenating literaryprac ction withtheMarxist-Le in 1968,theSecretaryGeneraladdressto realist literaturewhic s verydifferentfromth Sub semnul întreb ance ofanewgenerationwritersinthe ages ofthis deba . lism; theinterviewstakenbyAdrian 1 includednotonlyadiscussion literature.Asimilar, although generational conflictalsotook neration conflictspointsout ă rii [Question Mark] rii [Question h might “influence the ight of theliberalising tices troughtheideas ninist discourseabout e principlesofrealist te. Thegenerational literature, butalsoa 3 This had as a Thishadasa Luceaf (Bucure ărul and şti: CEU eTD Collection Sub semnul, 4 3 2 1 provide a“boundless” definiti those from theold-guardofrea meaning ofrealism wereincreasingly feltasblow socialist realism. Theseconstant, sometimes ex The definitionrepresentsaprofoundchange attitude of the writer towards life than devices that itused. who defined realism asageneral tendency within modern literature regardless of thestylistic socialist literature. Thiswasthecase w Furthermore, this allowedthem to pushthelim legitimise theirownliteraryproduc Romanian literature after1947became acommonst an attitudethanasasetofpre-established tech Thiswaspossibleasthenotionvague contradicting definitions,according totheintenti grapple withandexpressthenewrealitiesofRomanian socialism. literature triedtopresenttheir 258. Mihai Beniuc, former president of the Writers’ Union, expresses his distaste for Garaudy’s notion. See P P Paul Georgescu, D.R. Popescu, “Despre romanul actual [About the Contemporary Novel],” ă unescu, unescu, Realism isnothingbutth phenomenon andtogivethereaderth experience bysituating itwithin Sub semnul, Sub semnul, 172. Polivalen 176. 2 Crohm ţ a necesar ă on ofrealistliterature. lniceanu after1965todefinerealism himself came moreasan works asjustanotherwaythrough ă [The NecessaryPolyvalence] list socialistwriters, whostarte ts byincludingthem withinare as aclosesetofstylisticdevices: ith AlexandruIvasiuc,D.R.Popescu e profoundandmature refl a largersocialcontext, aswelladesiretounderstand a 66 niques, orasan all-inclusive tendency withinthe from his1961insistenceupontheformulae of e opportunitytoassess ons ofitsproponents.Defining realism more as its of what wasandwa its ofwhat aggerated redefinitions n upevenbythewritersthemselves, especially 4 enoughtoallowdifferentandsometimes rategy forthoseintellectualswhowantedto

(Bucure Luceaf ti: Editura pentru Literatur pentru şti: Editura d tocriticise thetendencyto which modernrealism triesto ection uponthedataofour ă spectable Marxis 2(1965). 2(1965). rul with fullobjectivity. s notacceptablefora and reanalysesofthe 1 , orPaulGeorgescu

t tradition. ă ă , 1967), , 1967), unescu, unescu, 3

CEU eTD Collection 2 1 themselves coulddefinetheirconnectionwith literary fieldandpoliticalonecouldalso autonomy politicalinvolvement and couldbeexpre ground andalanguagethroughwhichtherelationshi the 1960sand1970s.Thediscourseaboutrealism, however,provided atheoreticalmiddle- discussions surroundingitremain Thevagueness andthesemantic opennessofth official partydoctrineclangto magazines, undesirable politicalviewswerecritici unrepresentative elements of thenewsocialist reality.Within thepublic sphere of literary naturalist tendenciesofhispr clanger wasexpressedinaesthetical realism headingmore towardsanaturalist depiction. Romania, as AlexandruPiruclai Alexandru Piru:itwasnotonly educational system. short-story post-war Romania. Thiswasthecasewhenin1964D.R.Popescupublished, critical traditionof thepresent implied takinga about theabuses committed inthe1950s oratth Ontheotherhand,notionofrealism ope limits which thewriters hadtoface:couldtheydi

Scânteia, Luceaf ă rul November 24, 1965. 1965. 24, November 24, 25, 26 (1965). 25, 26 (1965). 24, Leul Albastru [The BlueLion]Leul Albastru[The 1 The writer was readily pilloried intheofficial Party newspaper by

itwere twoofthereasonsw ose; itwashisnotionofrealismmade himpickup which med, butalsoanartisticfailur ed animportant part the factthatitprovided an terms, aspartofhisincapaci inwhichhepresentedadireimage ofthepost-war be discussedandanalysed:culturalproducers their socialbackground aswellthepositionof 67 e present?Putting thenotionofrealism withina stand towards some of thedevelopments within scuss about thefailures ofthesocialistregime, sed through thelanguage ofliteraryaesthetics. ssed. As a result, the relationship between the ssed. Asaresult,therelationship betweenthe p between“artandlife,”aesthetic ned upquestionsregardingtheideological 2 oftheRomanian li e notion,aswellthewayinwhich Consequently,D.R.Popescu’spolitical hy thenotionofrealism andthe e whichdistortedthemeaning of untruthfulimage ofpost-war ty toleaveaside ortrim the terary lifethroughout Luceaf ărul , his CEU eTD Collection were addressed to the members the moderateby to even critics. were addressed Group Oniric Condition of the Novel],” consequence, thePartyintensified itsattempts tocontrol theliterary field, 4 3 2 1 the productionofbooksthatmight “promote amongs culminated withthe1971 JulyTheses aiming atst and overtprotestswere through anonymous votingthewriterselectedsome of theParty’sdecisions:th clear thatsome literaryinstitutions had gained new disputesamongst thewriters.Thereasonisth theoretical interventi Theperiodbetween1968and about realism.BesidesP circulation. mould andorganizetheliterary which reflectedtheway inwhichdiscussions a power. Someoftheliterarymagazines from the inside the literary field aswelltherelations political involvement and/oraestheticaut intellectual workwithinasocialistsociety.Inth Prose],” Gabanyi, Gabanyi, Amongst those at which Radu Petrescu participates, one canfind roundtables about “Condi Amfiteatru Amfiteatru România literar România Literatura Literatura Literatura 36 (1968) published the roundtable “O modalitate artistic “Omodalitate the roundtable 36 (1968) published 1 , which caused a turmoil amongst Romanian literati; accusations of experimentalism and escapism escapism and ofexperimentalism literati;accusations Romanian amongst aturmoil caused , which

i politica, şi politica, şi politica, ă ons orthescandalprovokedbymembers of

24 (1975); “Personajul literar “Personajul 24 (1975); Luceaf heardfromDumitru 177. 177. 176. 176. ă ă unescu’s interviews andAlexandruIvasiuc’sarticles,various e resolutionsdrawn upbefore

rul rul 23 (1973); “Problemele prozei contemporane [Problems ofContemporary fieldwithinthe 1971 wasoneofthemost import onomy providedmeans ofnegotiatingtheposition Ţ enough autonomy toafforddisconsidering several [The LiteraryCharacter],” [The 68 epeneag andMironRaduParaschivescu. hip thatthe literary field hadwiththepolitical is waythediscourseaboutartandreality, period startedtopublishroundtables orsurveys bout literary theoryand literarypractice could rengthening “thecultural at theWriters’Congre undesirablemembers intheUnion’sCouncil t themasses theideologyofourparty,its public sphereofmagazines andbooks ă [An Artistic Mode]”of the members of the the members the of [AnArtisticMode]”of the Congresswerenotaccepted,

România literar România the ant moments inthedebate Oniric Group ss of1968hadmade it front,”byincreasing 4 attempts which ţ ia romanului [The ă

43 (1976). (1976). 43 2

sparkled 3 Asa CEU eTD Collection Totalitarismului, 2005), 121-137. The speech was held by the General Secretary on 6 Secretaryon the General by washeld speech The 121-137. 2005), Totalitarismului, Cultural in1971,] Mini-Revolution Cultural regimului Ceau regimului the Marxist-Leninist Education of all Pa end of the liberalisation period from the 1960s. period from 1960s. the ofthe liberalisation end further theirclaims: thiswas delimit aclear-cutnumber ofpersonsasvariouswriters against those whoresorted tothepolitical capital Similarly, whatwerecalled criticised the cultural press for notcomplying with the Partyline. 4 3 2 1 legitimacy ofitsopponents,asitwasthecase easily usearguments ofaestheticvalueand Within thesediscussions,th negotiating one’sstand andthelimits between th Albastru debate). trying tocontest the regime, tocriticisethis political capital basedon theabilitytokeepwithin strategies ofevaluating intellectualproduc autonomy vs.politicalinvolvement dividedthein aesthetic autonomy rancounterto constantly wagedandatthe1968 official cultural press decrying the aestheticist position did notnecessarily involve atotal change Marxist-Leninist politics.” Monica Lovinescu, Gabanyi, Gabanyi, NicolaeCeau Literatura Literatura Literatura escu, “A Proposal Concerning the Improvement of Improvement of the Concerning “AProposal şescu, șescu: minirevolu Unde scurte III [Short Waves III] i politica, şi politica, şi politica, 1 Despiteits1965claims forcultural 187. 187. 136. ţ ă cultural ia

accusations ofescapism (evasionism the casewhenMarinPreda,by ed. Ana-Maria Catunu ed.Ana-Maria theMarxist-Leninistdoctrine. e discourseaboutrealismprovi Writers’ UnionCongress,thepart rty Members and of all rty Membersand in Workers],” din 1971 [The End of Ceau ts: cultural capital base official discourse(D.R.Popescu’scaseinthe (Bucure 69 tendencies ofthenewRomanian literaturewere when EugenBarbuwasaccusedofplagiarism. ese twopositions. Theaestheticist camp could peer-recognition inorder toundermine the theofficial discourse of thepartyor, for those strategies. Ofcourse,th tellectual elite,anditalsoimplied various ti: Humanitas, 1994), 67-70. 67-70. 1994), şti: Humanitas, incultural policies: campaigns withinthe ş (Bucure couldresorttoeitherofthem inorderto the Political and Ideological Activity, aswell Ideological and Political the 1968 amember oftheaestheticist ti: Institutul Na şti: Institutul liberalisation, theParty’sofficial şescu Regime’s Liberal Period: The 2 ded the language necessary for ded thelanguagenecessaryfor Similarly in1969Ceau ) andelitism couldbeused 3 d onpeer-recognitionvs. Theissueof institutional y insistedthattheideaof th Sfâr of July 1971, and marked the the marked and ofJuly 1971, itul perioadei liberale a liberale perioadei şitul ese strategiesdidnot ţ ional pentru Studiul ș escu Leul 4

CEU eTD Collection 2 1 mentioned earlierhadtheresultof imposing a redefine or define to tried camps and theold-guardofsocialist reasons whythegenerationalconflictbetween th for stateresources whilelegitimis yardsticks for cultural excellence and cultural representativity, disqualifying othercompetitors evaluation standards.Intheba literature isand,more generall should belike,howitsplotshou excluding otherculturalproducers Consequently,talking about realism vs.escapism implied adefinition of literature which could bolsterone’sclaimtocultu consideration Romania’s presentcond camp couldeasilyaccuse suchworks ofofferingan peer-recognition andcouldnotbeeasilypoliticised. emphasising asthecr theautonomyoffield, techniques (whatinthelanguageofperiodwascalled favour oftheliberalisingreforms inRomanian cu tried atthesame time toenhancetheautonomy of the limit of realistliterature inorder toincl which lacked anycontact with the present-dayrealities. camp, whoaccusedhowever some oftheyoungaut of the 1960s consciously defied the realist consensus. consensus. realist the defied consciously 1960s the of This was particularly the case with the the was casewith This particularly the Preda, Marin Imposibila întoarcere [The Impossible Return]

-realism writerswas expressed rgaining game forstateresour ral capitaland culturalrepresenta y, ofintellectualworkwith thenotionofrealism. Theoffi Oniric Group Oniric ld unfurl,howcriticalanovelistshouldbe ing one’sownclaim tothestate’ from thecompetitiontostatere itions anditspolit whose mixture whose ofsurrealism a ude variousmodernist oravant-gardeexperiments 70 theliteraryfieldandduring1960swerein iteria ofassessingsuch workswerebasedon line ofdebate(discuss e newgroupofprosewritersfromthe1960s lture. Usingavant-garde 2 (Bucure escapist literaturewhich Intheirturn,those hors ofveeringintoadangerousescapism ical implications. 1 Usually,thosewho şti: CarteaRomâneasc ă experimentalism through thewaysinwhichboth in asocialistnation,provided ces, thesestandards acted as sources. Definingwhatanovel cial interventions of theParty tiveness withinthe field while s support.Thisisoneofthe nd thenew French avant-garde opposing theaestheticist ion aboutrealism and or modernist literary ) became away of refused totakeinto , 1972), 216. 216. , 1972), , whattheroleof wanted tostretch CEU eTD Collection Popescu and theloss ofhisjob as asecretary. in Simionescu’s casethepublica 1 to some oftheintellectualgroupswhichwerea Thiswasespeciallyimportant asinbothcases thelackof political commitment oftheir works hadbeen readilycritic production. promoted bythecultural authorities, adiscourse whichstressed thepolitical import of literary recognition, whileneverthelesstryingtointegrateth cultural field,thiswasaskedfor literature related tothesocialist realities of th necessary to takeastand withinthese debatesabout themeaning ofrealism andthewayinwhich account, discussandinterprettheof resources, requiredthattheintell terms ofthe debate, but itsintervention within thefield aswellitscontrol of economic different groupswithinthecultur decisions to strengthen thecult socialism) regardingwhichtheintellectualsneeded topositionthemselves. Followingthe1971 Trifescu, 4.2. Entering the literary field meant for bothM.

Threading onMiddleGround Mircea Horia Simionescu, 45. ised. In RaduPetrescu’s caseitwasthereview from

ural front these interventions intensified the conflicts between by theirneedtomaintain their ectuals’ interventions within the public sphere should take into tion ofhisfirsttwobooksled al field.Thisdidnotnecessarily ficial positionsoftheParty. 1 e day.Duetotheirmarginal position withinthe 71 Moreover, both ofthem werevery muchrelated ccused ofaestheticescapism: M.H.Simionescu H. Simionescu andRaduPetrescuthatitwas eir literarypracticesin professional capit

to theconflictwithDumitru mean thattheParty mean setthe theofficialdiscourse al throughpeer- Lupta

de clas ă, CEU eTD Collection 2 1 realist literature whichwas,despitethevarious of the the relevance ofthedream inliteratureandth the mouthpiece ofthe short livedexistencehadbeentiedtotheliterary some ofthenames ofthisgroup:Dumitru The OniricGroup castigated by the authors andthecritics asking for a more politicised,socialist type of literature: hailed byRadio FreeEurope andtheaestheticist Paraschivescu renderedhim dange What wasmoresuspicious in RaduPetrescu’s positioninside the literary field wasthe fact thathisappearance in one ofherR.F.E.reports. came tobeknowas“MironRaduParaschivescu’s indefatigable MironRaduParaschivescuand,inth grounds afteronlyninemonths.Hisfirstbookcame published in of MironRaduParaschivescu,anoutspokencritic Radio FreeEurope.Similarly,Ra and wasperceivedasabulwarkofculturalliber had publishedhisfirstshort-storyin Monica Lovinescu, Ţepeneag and Dimov, Momentul oniric Nouveau Roman Nouveau Povestea Vorbii Unde scurte [Short waves] . Al.I.Ş Oniric , themembers ofthegrouphadovertlydefiedsome oftheprinciples of tef ă

movement. nescu’s scathing review of Radu Petrescu’snovelputhimnescu’s scathingreviewofRadu amongst , aliterarymagazine whichhadbeencloseddownonpolitical Povestea Vorbii , 191. , 191. du Petrescu’s firstshort-stor rously closetooneofthe Luceaf (Bucure 2 Bytrying torehabilitate, ina quasi-surrealist fashion, Ţ ărul epeneag and Vintil rough theiradmiration fortheFrench avant-garde ti: Humanitas, 1990), 298. 298. şti: Humanitas, 1990), 72 interpretations thatithadgained,the hegemonic fateofthemembers ofthegroup,beingseenas as wellhisconnect 1

alisation even bytherather highstandardsof while themagazine wasledbyEugenBarbu e pressaswellfor RadioFreeEurope,he side oftheliteraryfield, hadbeenalways to bepublishedthrough thePartylineinculturalmatters, anditwas latest discovery”,asAnneliMaierputitin y waspublishedthroughthehelp literary groupswhich,although ă Iv ă nceanu. ion withMironRadu the help of the same the helpofsame Povestea Vorbii ’s

CEU eTD Collection 3 2 1 Thisliberties takeninregard tothe hegemonic realistlanguagedominating theliterary field didnotfailtobenoticedandreprimanded, as having amore orlessdetaileddescription: narratives. surrealist description foreachofthem,descripti presented intheformofanonomasticdict specifically modernisttinges,co temporal narrativeorofalogicalsequence different ways.M.H.Simione Toacertainextentandsimilarly totheliterature of the works defiedtherealistconsensusdominating th Oniric received byRaduPetrescu intandem withEmil discourse within Romanian literature. and Dimov, which writings syrupy eggwhitefoamdri is “FRANÇOIS: Pekinese dog”; alittle like you around cuddle (Bucure and socialist realism … At that time it was actually easier to publish realism …Atthat timean socialist itwaseasier publish and actually to MirceaHoria Simionescu, “DOROFTEI: Aperfect man with aninvisible ribbon around his neck which makeshim, fromtime to time, to AsDumitru ti: Editura Literatur pentru şti: Editura group. characters' (GalbaMarcettiinLeCourrier).(Flammarion,Paris,1936) patriotic, withpages reflecting the tasteof DOMITIO HEIMEYER:Textiles andUncertainti 1910, typewrittenbooklet) Study. –Awardedthe'Grigore Antipa' Prize ION GABRIELESCU:TheDispersalofTailed Momentul, 2 Similarly, hissecondnovel wascastoutas Ţepeneag mentions itisnotonlytheirliteratureth overtly defied the notion of realism “It was not easy to do theory outside of the confines of Marxism ofMarxism confines the of outside easyto do theory realism “Itwas of not notion the defied 188. 188. Bibliografia general Bibliografia pping”. MirceaHoria Simionescu, ă

, 1969), scu’s firstpublishedbookshaddone mmon withintheliteratureof

296, 306. 1 Moreover, theWriters’ Union prize for literature was ă [General Bibliography] ionary, composed ofhundredsnames witha 73 ons ranging from atwolinessentence tofull Brumaru, bythattime anothermember ofthe events while,atthesame time refusingany e Romanianliteraryfield,althoughinrather A metallic, sweet, spiralled man, like a whisk on a on like which whisk A metallic,man, sweet,spiralled some of theinterviews from theofficial press the last century, a of theRomanian Academy.(Bucharest, an annotated bibliography witheachtitle Children intheSubcarpathianArea.A Dic es. –'An excellentnovel,romantic and at produced the scandal, but their theoretical ţ Oniric Oniric ionar Onomastic [Onomastic Dictionary] (Bucure Oniric Group theperiod:firstbookwas text than to talk it.”Ţepeneag totalk about than text ti: Humanitas, 2007), 17, 19. 19. 17, 2007), ști: Humanitas, awaywiththeideaofa nd withfinelydrawn , bothoftheauthors’ 3

CEU eTD Collection Purcaru wasreplacedthe with muchmo Purcaru. Due to the support given to the Oniric Thefactthat thetwoauthorsdid note Romanian intelligentsia, Piru whoseprogram wasrunni interview published inthemagazine literary productionscouldbeincludedwithinaverygeneraldefinitionoftheterm. Inan Inthissense,bothSimionescu andRaduPetrescu’s strategywasthat indeterminacy andthesemantic opennessof theterm realism sothat,atleast overtly, their would notnecessarilycutthem anyaccessto the politicisedenvironment 1970ssoth ofthe Onirics’ 4 3 2 1 even thosegenres andtypes ofwritings whichcould notbenecessarily defined asliterature: without anyconnectionwiththethemes, thest of contactwiththecontemporary Nicolae Manolescu general consensusthroughits postmodernist techniquessuchas consensus oftheperiod,asitprovidedaremake attest. Unblemished Life (interview with Mircea Horia Simionescu)],” adev “Oportunitatea camp. anti-aestheticist Povestea Vorbii Vorbii Povestea itsdisappearance Until camp. aestheticist, liberalising the criticsof leading One the of Flacar in GeorgeArion by the magazine taken the interviews one of casewith isthe This Contemporanul 1 Radu Petrescu’s literature, althoughitseem

literature wasdue totheway inwhich they 14 (1970). 14 (1970). 2 putit,thebookseemed tohaveappear 4 M.H.Simionescu triedtoinclude undertheterm “realist literature” disregardofanythesocialor

ng contrarytotheliberalis re politically obedient Alexandrure politically Piru. had been the supplement ofthe magazine the appearanceofnarrator literature oftheperiod:“Outsi ă rului: semnul unei vie unei semnul rului: Ramuri,

Group publishing facilitiesandresources. yles orthepretencesofRomanian prose.” and to his editorial board which still included, in 1970 Ilie 1970 in stillincluded, which board editorial to his and 74 then undertheeditorial at theculturalcapital xperience thecommon outra ofaclassicallovest hadmanaged to legitimise their literature in Flac ed muchmore observantof therealist ţ i curate [The Opportunity ofTruth, as Sign of an ă ra 16 (1977). (1977). 16 ed outofnowhere,lackinganysort ing tendenciesfoundamongstthe political themes oftheperiod.As in the storyitself, baffled the de theliteraryenvironment, Ramuri based onpeer-recognition board ledbyAlexandru ory interspersed with , led by the journalist Ilie Ilie journalist the by , led ă ofplayinguponthe , which belonged to the to belonged , which ge peltedatthe 3

CEU eTD Collection (1970). (1970). 3 2 1 historical experienceofthework informational society: but itisa wayof keepingabreast withthe straight narrativelineisowednotsomuch toan he triestostressthathiscollage institutional settingswhichbecome moreandfamiliar tohim/he describe, realistically, thewayinwhichm modernising idealof the communist Simionescu usesoneofthemain rhetoricalel Bytryingtoshowhow,inhisneo-avantgar scientific languageshedoesnothingbutreflect Câmpeanu initiated statistical researches statisticalresearches regard initiated Câmpeanu interested in the way in whichmodern media of communication were usedby the Romanian citizens; Pavel Simionescu, “Oportunitatea adev more more be and to started sociology of discipline rehabilitated same time,the atthe that note should One MateiAlexandru,“Dialog cu MirceaHoriaSimi [Interviewer] common man. bureaucratic gibberish,butthey proposals etc.Arethesejusteff ofintention, letters telegrams, minutes, C.V.-s., issue: administrative concern being human [Mircea HoriaSimionescu] Consideredstatisti administrative language? In thesame manner, tryingtoanswerthe work ofart. but whichwereconsideredasbeinginaesthe literary criticism, many formal expressions elements whichonetendstoforget,suchas I wassurprised and happy tofind out that withinthe realm of literature onecan include

1 But howcanoneobtainanywisdomfrom 3

2

ă rului.” rului.”

ofadministrative textsandficti ing class,he presents hisabsu ects ofmodern Apparent red-tape? elite.Inthissense,hepresentshisproseastryingto contain objective situations, dramas andtragedies ofthe ing different media, including Television. Television. including media, ing different onescu [Dialogue with MirceaHoriaSimionescu],” 75 uponthecomplexcondition odern socialistman wasimmersed indifferent avant-garde tradition which hetriestoemulate, ements ofthe officialdiscourse, namely the real conditionofthem cally, most oftheread tic and found their place only accidently in a tic andfoundtheirplaceonlyaccidentlyina which arereadilyusedbythemodern man accusations thathisprosedowngradedthe thescientificlanguage de re-usageofvariousadministrative and someelements borrowed from the on, aswellhisrefusaltousea rd humour asan attempt to r. Inmost ofhisinterviews ly theyarejustaform of ings donebyamodern odern citizeninan orthelanguageof of themodernman, Ramuri 6 CEU eTD Collection 3 2 1 literary realism orwiththenarra of varioustypesdiscourses,withoutnecessari claim that,inordertohave access tothecomple Antonescu’s rule. since theonsetofstatesocialism, topr depiction of theAntonescuregime andofthe the interviewwastakenin1976,oneyear directly derivingfrom communist idealsand the post-modernist streakwhichcharacterisedhispers discourseintoth inclusion ofM.H.Simionescu’s It isnot only the emphasis put on the“ethical era: deconstruct thefascistsocietyofinterwar reflection of the communist realities of the day.SeeSimionescu, the the reflection of realities communist Simionescu, “Oportunitatea adev Inthe preface tothe 19 Mircea Horia Simionescu, “ 1

startling innovationswhich deservetobementioned. people shouldmake useofthecomplexlangua It isabsolutely necessary thatthenovels In aseries ofarticles from themagazine It wasthehistorycomprised inthetextbooksof unsanctioned bytheprinciplesofourparty, prophets. These weremyweapons…noteven into mere anecdote. Ideconstructed theirbe 91 editionofhisnovelheclaims Limbaj ă rului.”

i realitate [Language and Reality],” and [Language şi realitate tive sequencerequire

after thepublicationofMarinPreda’s opose adifferentperspectiveuponthewarand Iron Guardrevolthadmana periodand,thereby,announcethenewsocialist 76 codeofsocialistedu that theabsurd realitypres x realitiesoftheday,writershould make use dealing withcontemporar Via its anti-fasciststand.One shouldalsonotethat by the ethical code ofsocialisteducation. e officialrealm, butalsothewayinwhich pective uponmodern historycouldbeseenas ly keeping inline withanobsoleteform of lligerent ideals like atoyand ridiculed their ţ a Româneasc d byclassical19 the fascistdictatorship 284. 284. Bibliografia, ge thatourcontemporaries use,withits one singletraitattackedbyme remains 3

Via ţ a Româneasc ă he continuedtosupportthe th cation” whichmarked the ent in his novels was actually a ent inhisnovelswasactually a centuryrealism: y topics,withmodern ged, for thefirst time thatchangedhistory ă

23 (1976). (1976). 23 Delirul , whose 2

CEU eTD Collection discourse. of the topoiofthe common official di Farfromrepresenting animprobable innovation choose thedataavailableforth 1 selection ofthedatapr vision ofrealistliterature,Radu D.R.Popescu’snovelasproposingavalid way inwhichAlexandruPirurefusedtoacknowledge the “realism” presentwithintheofficialdiscourse within the discourse enabledhim neverthelesstogainthe into theeverydaylifeofitscitizens.Thistac emphasise therapiddevelopment oftheRomanian proposed couldbepoliticallylegitimateasitassu this languageinordertolegitimise anavant- cultural activistthatwaspromoted after1971,butin much inthewaywhichherefused tobeled surpass theobsoletecharacterofmodern literature.Thenoveltyof discussion betweensomepatientsinahospital, RaduPetrescu, “Simple reflec are caughtinthefiercestruggleofconstr whole communitiescanstand, fo of thefirststagesadolescence. Onemight take upasrealitythefirst appearancesthatco He givesasanexample, inastyleresemb The firstobligationofthem RaduPetrescu’sstrategywouldfollowthesame aestheticist camp. esented tothenovelist: ţ ii [Simple Considerations],”

scourse: the building of socialism and the the and socialism of building the scourse: e novelistwasoneoftheways Petrescu triedtos odern novelistconsistsinreno r ashorttime, underthesignof it acknowledgement ofthede uction, theysucceedto attaintheirmanhood. cultural capitalprovided 77 garde literarypractice. whose usageofthemedi med theofficial discourseanditstendenciesto . Inamanner whichwasrather similar tothe into theofficial discourse ofthewriterasa ling thesocialistrepo România Literar me inhisway.Thistendency ischaracteristic society,itsswiftincl also findcasesoftheperpetualteenager,and uggest aform ofrealism basedonaproper thewayinwhichheappropriatedtohimself linesintryingtoenlarge themeaning of , theideathatarealis ă through whichsocialistrealist

48 (1972). The author refers to one toone refers author The (1972). 48 uncing thenaïvetendencyto “manly virtues” propagated by this hisapproachconsistsnotso throughpeerrecognition The “realism” whichhe this age.Butwhen they usion ofmodern media rtages ofthe1950s,a cal jargonmanaged to corum oftheofficial t literatureshould 1

CEU eTD Collection characteristics ofourage: of the For himthepresentisimmersedinactivities which, despitetheirbanality,bearsome which heconsiderstoshare some ofthecharact per se, oron theevents affectingthe workingclass, However, the abstract nature of this 3 2 1 is verymuch immersedinthepresent, inwhathecallsthe “present of thenowandhere.” the directinfluenceofpolitical In thisway,andapparentlycontra on abstract narrative schemes andpost-modernist inter-textuality: introduce withintheterm “realism” techniquespe for socialist realistwriters theirschematic interpre however, wasthewaythroughwhichthisessentia Piru, attacked “politically harmful” works.Wh signsofthewayinwhichsoci common, bearing the post-warreality. In thisse theoreticians interpreting it, what he calls disparagingl he it, what interpreting Petrescu, “Simple reflec Crohm Idem. Idem. ă power” be controlled,totransformedintopoetr consolidation) that thewave of literary refe and diversified (underthe outermost interest, hiswayofaccedingtotheuniversal. Thismoment issocomplicated present ofthisminute, Romania’s present, What Ihaveinview,iswhatinterestsus lniceanu in his 1960 handbook of soci 1 couldeasilyindictthoseliteraryproductswhichreflecte 2

ţ ii”. ii”.

events,RaduPetrescutriesto nse, RaduPetrescu’sstrategyc ry totheaesthe y “the keepers of the whole truth.”Crohm present unifyingsignof acommon effortofconstructionand alist realism criticises thosewhotake criticises up realityasitis,without alist realism moment focusesnotsomuch onthepoliticalevents 78 ticist claims whichtriedtomove thenovelfrom eristics of common experi at managed tolegitimise hisliteraryworks, tations and conflicts is rtaining moretothe all atthemoment, thenovelistforwhom the rences andcitationswouldrequire,inorderto lisation ofreality,whichmanaged toprovide theRomanian human being,constitutes his alist realistth y, a wave of abstractions, ofconceptual y, awaveofabstractions, butonabstractfeaturesofeverydaylife propose atypeofliteraturewhich eoreticians, suchasAlexandru ould beconsideredasfairly ă lniceanu, d andsharedtoomuch of avant-garde novel, based avant-garde novel,based used byhiminorderto ence ofsocialistlife. Pentru realismul, realismul, Pentru 82. 3

CEU eTD Collection 4 3 2 1 carefully incorporated withinhi in Western literature. Group who,after1965hadbecome oneofthebutt Nouveau Roman,introducedintothe Romanian literatu criticise the Inthesame vein,Radu Petrescu is carefultoincludewithinhistheoretical andcritical texts some of theelementsthrough whichthe representatives of thepolitical camp triedto educational activityremainsobvious us all,literatureasapedagogicaltool: itmight sensible totherealitysurroundinghi common activitieswhichshouldre resorting to apoliticalvocabulary, thispeda the wayinwhichitcultivates thecommon sensibilityof thesocialistman. socialist realistrhetoricofthe1950s,hasaneducative, Radu Petrescu cantalkaboutandproposeatypeof “C of Romanian pedagogy (O. Ghibu), unduly forgotten because of its role in Romania’s attachmentof Bessarabia: Novel],” Radu Petrescu, “A treia dimensiune [The Third Dimension],” founders ofthe for one interest the to rehabilitate tried Petrescu Radu same thatatthe period note to Itisimportant Radu Petrescu, “Dialectica prezentului. Opinii despre ro Idem. Idem. ă r ţ i, oameni, fapte [Books, People, Deeds],” It isthroughthislow România Literar purpose ofthewriterorcriticto mobilises in thesimple actofwatching acer The cultivatedvocation necessaryforwatc novel iscreatedthroughthist bodies oftext,inalivin aestheticists. Thus,hecriticiseswhatconsid ă 4

30 (1970). (1970). 30 Some ofthehighrepresentatives level ofbanaldescriptionwhichhepr

g architecturalassembly. s prose,admired anddiscussed onlywhenitcultivatesacertainsensibilitytothereal” m/her: “ButIhavetoreturn ype ofinvisiblepresences,aggr present thedevelopment ofamodern socialistperson, Via ţ a Româneasc 79 gogical functionispresentedtrough thesame seem bizarrebutitisnot becauseapermanent explain it, when thewr man [Dialectics of the Present. Opinions about the the about Present. Opinions the man [Dialectics of literature which,byreturning tosome ofthe România literar România tain perspective uponexistence and itis the hing carefully a dog, a bench inapark, hing carefullyadog,bench ă all theattacksagainst

6 (1978). 6 (1978). re bysome of themembers of the 1 pedagogical functionexpressedthrough

ofthemodernist novel,although ers thenaturalisttechniques ofthe ă esents aspolitica

ad infinitum 27 (1972). (1972). 27 theideawhichissodearto egated inbiggerand iter cannotdoit.…The 2 However, farfrom However, the decadentthread , such asJames lly laden,that Oniric 3 .

CEU eTD Collection autonomy oftheliteraryproduct.Inthissensefactthat RaduPetrescustressed outthe Oniric Group within thefield: themodernist andavant-garde techniquesof the stake butthe wayinwhichthenovel managed supposed toassessitsvalue:itwasnolongerthe po aesthetical autonomy oftheliteraryproductandpeer-r character” asitwasalarmingly phrasedwithin onwhichthepoliticaldialoguewaspur common ground Nouveau Roman tried todoawaywiththecharacterandfocu socialist state:itcould depicted managed tophrase,within thenovel,some ofthepoliticalpositions regarding the doubts regardingthesocialistideal? politicised: doesthesocialisthero of theremnants ofthesocialis the rhetoricalelements ofthe fairly different from theoneof thepolitical ca declaring the deathofthecharacter.Although century prose, is presented asacounter-reaction 1 Hisinsistence uponthenecessityofdrawi contrary toanyofthecomm Joyce, areagaincensured and includedwithin Seealso his book managed toeliminate thepolitical Meteorologia lecturii [The Meteorology of Reading] andsome ofthosewhowereinfluencedbyitmanaged toobliteratethis either reinforceorunde on historicalcategorisations.

political novel.Thedisc t realistperiod,whenthefateof embodyallthevirtuesofsocialis Inthissense,thecharacter rmine itslegitimacy. Throughthewayinwhichit 80 mp, itmanages nevertheless s onnarrativetechniquesordepictions,the the literarypressof through itsaestheticqualitiestopositionitself anotion of naturalism whichseems torun to the narrative techniqu position from which hestatesthisnecessityis ng precisecharacters,reminiscent of19 litical ideasofthecharacterwhich wereat import ofthenovelandemphasise ussion aboutthereal 1

sued. In this sense, the “death of the sued. Inthissense,the“deathof (Bucure and thewayinwhichhe/shewas ecognition process whichwas theepicherocouldbeeasily şti: CarteaRomâneasc m, he/sheallowedtohave is Nouveau Roman Nouveau the period,emphasised the es oftheavant-garde, ist characterwasone to preservesome of ă orof , 1982). , 1982). The th

CEU eTD Collection 1 accepting its terms. which itallowed,theofficialdiscoursewasunde official discourse.Verymuch likethedomain of Simionescu andRaduPetrescu’s,couldconstantly that itcouldcontrol although theofficialdeclarationsof imposed bythePartyanditsdecisions.Atsame, however, recognising itslegitimacy andacceptingitsterms. In Consequently, farfromescapingrealism their order toinclude themselves within itsconf not bydefyingorshunningthehegemoniclanguage despite the fact thatthey wereabletojustify th literature provedtobeessentia cultural capital while nevertheless keeping within Themiddle groundonwhichbothauthorsthread bears proofoftheincreasingly might haveacknowledgedtheimportan importance ofthecharacterinhisworkscouldbeeasilyinterpretedasawaythroughwhichhe Petrescu, “A treia dimensiune.” their meanings andtheircirculati

politicised environmen l inpreservingthei thePartydecidedterms ofthedebates,this ce ofthesepoliticalimperatives. ines, bydoingpostmodernism inrealistgarbs. 81 eir practice,bothofthem public interventions actually reinforced itby rmined throughthosewhomade itpossibleby stateinstitutionsand theinformal networks a loosedefinitionofthe official discourseon change andredefineth r accesstopublishingfacilities.However, of realism butbystretchingitsdefinition in thissense, thepublicdiscoursewasindeed t ofthe1970s.Forthem, maintaining their in theirattempttolegitimise theirworks on. Variousinterpretations,likeM.H. it isimportant to noticethat 1

were forced todothat e significance of the didnotmean CEU eTD Collection 1 Oniric about thewriter whohadwritten aesthetic failure: inthecommentators’words,literature said something notjustabout itself but general consensus regarding realist literature, in a editors, IonB and their idea of the relationship between literat implications: asaconsequence negotiations, asitimplied asharp criticaledge and elitism. Thistypeof languagewas not,how literary practiceorundermine theothers’po discourse whichallowed onetochoseaposition withinthefield andlegitimate acertaintypeof necessity of reflecting thechange be settled:therelationshipofwriterwithsocial reality,thero field andthepoliticalone.That provided aconvenientlanguagefo 5. Lovinescu,

5.1. Who is the Reader? Imaginingthe Literature Public Part oftheconclusionlastchapterwasthatrealism andthediscoursesurroundingit movement mentioned “in this

Closer totheMasses:RealismanditsDangers Unde scurte, ă ie ş u, losthisjob. 338. 338.

of theroundtablepublishedinAmfiteatru isbecauseitprovidedthete 1 Itwasnotjust thefact that e s unfurling in thepresent, etc. Inthissenseaesthetics wasthe it andhispositioninsociety.As r discussingandnegotiatingthe exceptional moment ofourpe sition throughaccusationsofescapism (evasionism) 82 ever, asimple currencyofanodyneinstitutional ure andsocial reality, sense itwas notjustastrategic mistake or an , sometimes withpolitic rms throughwhichthedebatecould xperimental literature defied the le of literature insociety, the oneofthecontestants limits betweentheliterary ople’s history,whenour about the one of the magazine’s one ofthemagazine’s al and/orpractical Oniric Group CEU eTD Collection somewhere inourownsociety?” escapism anexpression ofsocialescapism? Doesnotthephenomenon existinreality, with socialescapism: “Becausein he explainsthatfarfrom repres 4 3 2 1 the problems thatshe/heencounters,hadalong activist, immersed inthe context that she/hespeaks of,beitafactory or amine, and analysing writing implied aconstantcontactwithsocialis writer andthesocialrealitysu socialist realism, basedonthepr Theconflation of literary escapism withsocial of thesocialpositionwriterwasnot time anddirectorof best expressedthisideawasth as itconveyed something abouthis positionwithin Romanian socialist society.Oneofthosewho Consequently,escapistliteratureandtheat for thereaderwhomight beinfluencedbyit,but incoherence. socialist societytriestosetit tries topoint outsome of themain characteristic Scânteia, Scânteia, and of our society, inescapi « comrade »init…Iam not interested word the Ifound itand Iopened your book, read ‘Icannot aestheticissues: with only acriticpreoccupied by told Preda, Imposibila, of problems time our the real and obsessive of avoidance wilful the in consist “Asitsname literature says,escapist critic byanother expression used isthe This Ş erban Cioculescu, “Artistul:st January 15, 1968, 1968, 1, 3. 15, January 1 Thatistosaytheyrefusebepart 217. 217. Cartea Româneasc ng, with the help of atorrent of images an ă pân saurob al visului s

self clearandnoblegoals,”the e novelistMarinPreda,thebestknownRomani an writeratthat enting justanaestheticabsurdit inciples ofdocumentation andth in this (Preda, books’.” of kind 4 rrounding him: farfrom beingasimple imaginative process,

deed itisthetime thatweshoul , Ion Frunzetti, as mentioned in Lovinescu, Lovinescu, in asmentioned Frunzetti, , Ion ă publishing house.Inhisbook altogetheranew idea 83 history inthedebatesrevolvingaroundsocialist s of escapist literature; after astrict definition, of“thecollectivedream ofourpeople.” t reality.The image ofthewriterasasocial even more sofor the writer whohadwrittenit, ă titude that itconveyed u [The Artist: Master orSlave of his own Dream],” escapism, seeing literary styleas amirror d words, into a world of fantasy … I once was Imposibila, Onirics y, escapism iscloselyconnected e closerelationshipbetweenthe d asksourselves:isn’tliterary ; itwasoneofthe 216). 216). emphasise ambiguityand Imposibila întoarcere wasadangernotonly Unde scurte, 338 338 topoi 2

of he he 3

CEU eTD Collection 1956). 1956). gains ourliterarylifehaswon,tran relation to thepractice of literary journalism, docu good relationshipwithsocialism itselfandthe 3 2 1 the 1970s,ofsocialistnati type oflifethatthewriterhadled,awayfrom pointed outnotonlytothelackofrelevance the politicalfield. Itisinthis built her/his “writingexperience” were required tobecloselyconnected totheeconomic orto political literature,butthemedium inwhich immersed inthesocial contexts that she/he political fieldsonwhichitdepended:thelife experience ofthewriterwassupposedtobe springing from itresultedinacloseinterlocking intellectual activity within society. writing processimplied thatacertainsocialpositi (visits tofactories or to the archives) far from beinga simple conscientious preparation for the people whodonot‘fieldwork’have startedtofeelashamed.” cannot writeawordtodaywithoutconstantc directly connected tothe socialist doctrine. realism. Thisisalso the modelof thesocialist literary reportage, The article was first published in in articlewas first The published contemporan [TheContemporaryWriter’sTask,] 15. 2002), Radu Cosa Radu A.Laughlin, Charles George Macovescu, In Bourdieu’s terms, theprocess of documentation as well as therealist literature şu, “Afectivitateadocument Chinese Reportage:the AestheticsofHistoricalExperience Reportajul literar [The LiteraryReportage] [The literar Reportajul Luceaf sense thattheaccusationofes

on. Asaresult,discussions ă in 1961. in 1961. rul ă sforming thistruthintoanaxio sforming rii [The Affectivity of Documentation],” in in Documentation],” of Affectivity rii [The ed. Antoaneta T Antoaneta ed. 2 Thereforewritinggoodsocia the common experience oftheworking classor,in the commonexperience she/he lived,theeconomic described. Notonlythat reality surroundingitthroughwhatwascalled,in 84 the literatureproduced,butitalsoindicted ontact withsoci of theliteraryfieldwithineconomic and mentation: “I think that oneof the significant on shouldbeassignedtothewriterand ă n ă (Bucure sescu (Bucure capism couldbecome dangerous:it bout literary style andlanguage bout literarystyle ti: Editura pentru Literatur pentru şti: Editura 3 1 Theprocessofdocumentation oneofthefewliterarygenres alist reality.Iwouldsaythat m, is:atrulytalentedwriter (Durham: DukeUniversity Press, ti: Editura Eminescu, 1974), 42. 1974), Eminescu, ști: Editura thewritershouldwrite basisonwhichshe/he list literaturerequireda Misiunea scriitorului scriitorului Misiunea ă

şi Artă , CEU eTD Collection immediately aftertheJuly Theses (September 21 The main problem withescapism ( Oneof themost persistentproblems raisedby therejuvenation of (socialist) realist discourse wastheissueofreadershipandre language aswelladi 3 2 1 was writtenbygoodsocialists. experience forthereaderbutalsoaprocessof aware to the social realities of the day. her/his income andlivelihoodwoulddependupontherespectiveeconomic unitmaking him/her thought, thateachwritershould beassigned toaneconomic unit, factory orinstitution, so that For solvingthisproblem oneof socialist man: education that the writerhadreceived andhi disciplinary governingofthewriter:statushis/he implied thecontrol of thepublic 2007). 2007). that itrequired see alsoE. A. Dobrenko, these these years,that facing great events, these during some documentation over the books that he is goin’ to write. I have the impression that this is what we have lacked impossible for a writer not to take his pen and start writing.” In Mali For the issue of socialist realism and its embeddedness within the socialist economy and the measures the disciplining socialistand economywithin its embeddedness Fortheissuerealism and socialist of ec an weassignthem to shouldn’t’ Mihale:“Why Aurel MirceaRaduIacoban addressing Nicolae Ceu For thisreasonsome oftheaccusationfrom time. whentheyhaven’ttroddenanyunpavedroadinquitesome should teach ushowtolive, and wheat.Idonotknowwhatoneshoulddo,but are veryskilfulatseizingtheineffable, I amratherworriedthattheyoungstersw 1

sciplining instrument.

3 Theaestheticsoftheofficial the participantsatdiscussi Political Economy of Socialist Realism of Socialist Economy Political sphere andofthediscoursespres evasionism 2 Writing a socialist realist literature implied not only an st , 1971.) Mali In , 1971.) şescu atthewriters’ meeting withtheSecretary General, 85 ), asitwasdefinedwithinthepublicdiscourse, s shyingawayfrom thecommonvaluesof withoutknowingthedi disciplining thewriter: lationship withthegeneralpublicofliterature. incredible constructions, thes constructions, incredible onomic unit? … To do something useful there as well ho worknow,thosewhoarecoming us, after the1970sreturnedtoproblem ofthe ţ a, r positionwithinsocialism. ț Ceu a, Ifinditoutrageousthatthesepeople Ceau ş escu, discourse representedahegemonic on suggested,inthesame lineof ş escu 87. 87. (New Haven: YaleUniversityPress, , 80. , 80. ent withinit,as well asthe fference betweenmaize good socialistliterature e working sites,itwill be e working CEU eTD Collection 2 1 understand, consequentlybecame barely writers’ disparagingattitudetowardsthecommon consequently thecommon man, thestat constant debate:if escapism couldcutoff theconnectionwithcommonman thismeant that Thewriters’dependenceuponstatefunding theread personalised andtheissueofwhowere has therighttocutofffundingforauthors. mentioned thattheworking class wantsand needs a one ofhisspeechesaddressed to accusation couldbeeasilytransforme was consideredtoprovidethefundsandfacilitiesavailablefor was notwellversedinthesubtle perceived asaddressinganelite, accusations ofincomprehensibility andpolitical working classortheRomanian nation.Anaccusa political issues,butalsoonit rested notonlyonthefactthatbyusingavant-ga discussion. See Jarausch, “Care andCoercion,” 61. working class to high culture, makes Konrad Jarausch’ term of“welfare dictatorship” very suitable for the to the people and the Committee should buy only what the people wants.” Mali classbelongs money as well,the working to the belongs Committee the of money Butthe thing!’ the will do Culture af art?’ …And callthis anyone Can this? As one may notice this pressure upon cultural producers, based on the emancipatory project of introducing the the introducing of project theemancipatory on based producers, cultural upon pressure this notice may one As on 5 millions me pay want to They is workerscame;this? said ‘What the they and exhibition an made they “And writing for,Iaskyou? man from thefactoryor from Vranceawouldea sometimes hemaymore understand thanothers.Because,ifwedonot writesothat factory understand?”…Maybe There’s noroom forrevulsion…ortheconcep

3

s relationshipwith apublicloos achosenfew,disregardingth the Writers’ Union, NicolaeCea ties ofmodern prose.Asther terwards the artist comes andsays‘N d intoaconstantthre veiledthreatsof that man fromthefactorycaneasilyunderstandand e taxpayer,shouldnotfundit. 86 ers andhowoneshoulddefinecame tobeunder rde techniques theauthor 1 man, “theman from thefactory”who cannot

orsocialescapism. Theauthor couldbe tion ofexperimentalism couldeasilytrigger literature suitable for itstastes,otherwise it and centralallocationbecame increasingly sily grasp the meaning thenwhatarewe tion that ‘how canthe workerfrom the spendingcuts: at that thesefundswouldbecutoff.In e needsof thereading publicwho eading public,imagined orreal, ever mind, for theCommittee Art and ţ a, ş ely defined as the Romanian ely definedastheRomanian escu made thisclearwhenhe the intellectualclass,suchan Ceau ş escu wouldfailtoaddress 2 , 57. , 57. Referencesto the CEU eTD Collection 1 could easily cutouttheirrepresentativity claims connection withtherealities notion ofliteraturemanaged tobeincludedwith public throughwhichtheycouldav andRaduPetrescu’sexperimentalAs bothM.H.Simionescu styles accusations ofescapismorlackconcern defining whothisratherobscurepublicwas. the statepublishinghousesshouldhavepublis resources by providing themodel consumer: ifthe funding, theissuewastoprovideanotionofth and incomprehensibility couldeasilyundermine production and,consequently,whattypeofpublicth Escapism andrealism raisedthe issueofwhoweretheconsumers of theRomanianliterary integrating one’sworkwithin producers insidethefield,definingpublica towards thepublic needs; writinganon-popular type capitalist economy, theculturalpr Thistypeof argument wasimportant inas requirements whichweremore specifictoama costs money’” Mali ‘Comrade, ifyou’re a poet, pleaseshowsome respectforth because theyare writtensochaotically In the Secretary General’s words at the same meeting: “There are works which politically do not tell anything tellanything not do politically areworks which “There SecretaryGeneral’s meeting: the same In words atthe ţ a, 1 Ceau whichmight undermine one’s claim toresources.Therefore,fortheliterature escu, şescu, ofsocialistRomania, th 176. 176.

the generalprogramme ofacen that, honestly,ifI were a book editor I wouldcall uptheauthor and tellhim oducer wassupposedtoaddresstheconsumer catertohis and of literaturecouldeasily amount toadisplay ofdisrespect oid theseattackswascrucial. Despite thewayin whichtheir 87 for thereadingpublic,proposing anotion ofthe . Theircultural capital aswelltheirrelative rket economy.Thus,inasimilar mannertoa hed, thenextimpending issuetosolvewas nd theliteratureconsumer becameawayof in ageneralconsensusaboutrealism andthe e publicwhich might bolsterone’sclaim to much asitintroduced withintheliterary field is paper, because people work hard to produce and it one’s claims tobepublishedfrom public public was to decidewh e writeraddressed.As eir literatureappealed tralised culturalproduction. accusations ofelitism to anelitepublicthat could easilyoccasion at typeofliterature CEU eTD Collection 2 1 public: journal howeverhewasmuch harsherindefiningtherequirements proseforthereading ofhis discernment, butalsooneofeducationaland manages toavoid,however,thefact consummate andpatientreader. of worldliterature, hidden quotationaswell Thenotionofreadingthathedevelopeda professional standardsofevaluationandcomprehens reader, steppedinthevariouscultural patronised throughsimplistic mass RaduPetrescu’s attempt inthiscase wasto public asmature enoughtoperceiveandappreci tried tobeasinclusivepossible. Radu Petrescuwantedtopresentanotionofthe prestige withintheaestheticist campledtothis Petrescu, Petrescu, “Simple reflec to bookswhichdonotinteresthim, wh other activities,thispublicshouldbeguard In anepochwhenthepublicissodistantin and thereader himself. as fullgrown men thatwecanunderstandth Writing, justlikereadingisanoccupationwh Pentru buna, 33. 33. ţ ii”. ii”.

1

By usingareferencetopsychol thatthedifference isnot somuch oneof moral maturity and cultural products.Hisliterature alwaysclaimed amature referenceswhichmake uphiswork: ile findingthem absurd,nevertheless. professional standards. 88 requirement. Inthissense,bothSimionescuand reading publicwhich,althoughelitistinnature, nd expoundedinhisarticlesimpliesasenseof apassion forlengthydescription requireda ed fromcomprising itselfthrougheasyaccess regard toart,engrossed andpreoccupied with ate experimentalist literaturewithoutbeing proposeanotionoftheRomanian reading e complex relationshipbetweenthewriter ion: inter-textual references to theclassics ich requiresasenseof ogical maturity, RaduPetrescu In hisunpublishedprivate maturity. Itisonly 2

CEU eTD Collection 1 while making itpalatableforapublishingindustryaimed atthebroad masses. In thissensethehighstandardsofanexperime as inclusivepossiblewhilepreservingthe as compatible withthehighstandardsofsucha part of thematurity of aself-assured public. C that time heconsidersthe“educ Therather contemptuous attitude towards the however, willnotbeexpressed withintheliterary order tounderstandthereferencesfrom Reading, and itsinterpretation.Atthesametim than the novel itself, wantedto explainas much asitaimed atcontrolling thenovel’s reception literature, therelationship of thework,explainingintentions,hiddenre model ofhisfirstnovel, diary Itistothispurposethatinhisessays explaining hiswork,in

Idem. Idem. P structure… good sentencecanlackcolourorhaveshar own, whichyoucannottouchandfeelisthesure Our reader ărul Berenicei[Berenice’s Hair], published thenextyear,itofferedanintroduc 1 is

amature person…Heknowsthatashap Matei Iliescu numerous references tohisownbo with variousgenresandstylesinEu

ational” undertakingnecessaryforareceptionof : thediarynotationfollows, Matei Iliescu. e, togetherwithhisessays-book,TheMeteorologyof published in1981,wasdevisedasanexplanatory idea ofaqualifiedpublicforhisprose: onsidering thewholeofRomanian readership 89 and publisheddiarieshesetuptheprogram of reading experiencethathe ntal avant-garde literature could bemaintained, ferences, theroleof public sphere. Within thearticlespublished at p contours,butitshouldconveyacertain

reading publicpresent tion intoEuropean lite signofalackvocationandtalent.A oks andworldliterature.Thus,his ropean literature. Thework, larger eless sentence,wit day byday,thewritingprocess the novelinRomanian proposes,hecouldbe in his privatediary, rature necessaryin hout a life of its hout alifeofits hiswork,as CEU eTD Collection the contactwithrealityisalreadyensure 3 2 1 important, asheisalreadymoor documentation provedtobefalseanduseless”. than the reality whichheconfronts andthus theinformation gathered from themostrecent “One hasseensituationsinwhic to-date regarding the recent events, isdescribed as The rhetoricofdocumentation, implying tripstoth reality promoted bytheofficial Simionescu’s intentionwastopr contact with thelarge public. Taki Thus,inanarticlepublished in of thepremises onwhichtheofficialindictme time expressedbyM.H.Simionescu withacertainpersuasiveclarity. the intellectuals.RaduPetrescu’s demands which, asIshowed earlier, wereincrea publicfollowedsimilar notionofthereading M.H.Simionescu’s lines.However,unlike Radu Petrescu,some ofhisinterv Româneasc “Regardless of the possibilities offered by fieldwork, the novelist travels travels offered by a lot, ideaswith fieldwork,his in possibilities the novelist of the “Regardless mind.” his M. H. Simionescu, “Despre documentarea romancierului [About the Novelist’s Documentation],” Idem. Idem. the preoccupationofatitle,or constitutes itselfassomethingun-programma documentation trips,appearstous,servehim The novelistknowsfromthestartwhatdetails, ă

6 (1978). 6 (1978).

discourse wasnotaltogetherarequirement forarealistprose: ed withinasocialfabricwit h thenovelist’sfictionprovedtobeessential,more significant ove thatthedocumentationand crypticdefinitionsandambiguousarticleswerefrom timeto ng asanexampleaclassic ofrealistliterature, Flaubert, M.H. entions were much morecritical in regardto themarket Via d throughhisownexistencewithinsociety. certain narrative,ofanevent.” ţ a Româneasc 2 90 Inthissenseitisnotwhattheauthor nt ofescapism wasbased:thewriter’sdirect singly heardfrom thePa e factories,totheworkingsitesorkeepingup- anuseless process, evenharmful sometimes: tic, thatonecannotscheduleandwithout only asconfirmations what wallsorgardenshewilldescribe … ă in 1978,hetriedtodeconstructsome hout making anyparticularefforts: the immersionintosocial 1

rty andfrom some of … the literary idea does Idem. Idem. thatis Via ţ a 3

CEU eTD Collection 2 1 how tochoose“solidworks.”Consequentlyitis reading publicalreadyhasthenecessarytastefo Simionescu’s criticism manages nonethelesstotu part oftheofficialdiscourse confusions affectingth publish greatnumbers ofcopiesthatcouldnot production anditsrelationtothe Simionescu’s criticism actually followed some Theremarks weremade in reference to th and, assuch,theyrepres quality: Similarly to RaduPetrescu,M.H.Simionescu knows whathe/shewantsandwhoismature e importance: literary workswhichkeepsthereaderfrom buyi works thatdo notcomply withthehigh demands of thepublic:itisnot theabstruse levelof the readers from buyingbooks,butthebureaucraticallo Ceu MirceaHoria Simionescu, “Despre târgul de carte [Regarding the Book Fair],” escu himself mentions this in his 1971 meeting with the withthe writers; see Mali thismeeting inhis 1971 mentions şescu himself exigency. modest titlesshowsusthat in therecentyearsexpensivebooks[…]have knows thatthepublicseekssolidworks,writte literature issomething normal now.Everyone The publicnowreadsalot,ismuch more 1

e distributionofbooks. ented aharshcriticism towardsthest

initsdemand for realism a reading public:hementions there is a change happening now, achangeinthe cultural 2 AsImentioned themarket 91 nough totakedecisionsandappreciateaesthetic not theelitistcharacter r literatureandtheconsummatereaderknows beabsorbed bythe market as wellas the e book-fairorganisedby ng, buttheirlackofva of theofficialstatements regardingbook rn theargument intheotherdirection: exigent, thetastea proposes themodelofareaderwhoalready cation ofresources n withtalentanddedi whopaysattentiontothebookmarket beensoldfaster ate’s editorialpol nd non-experimental literature. disapprovingly itstendencyto ţ a, Via Ceau ţ a Româneasc nd theappetiteforgood escu, şescu, of thenovelsthatkeeps than hundredsofmore which tends to choose which tendstochoose rhetoric was already a lue andofaesthetic theRomanian state cation. Thefactthat 57. 57. icies. However, ă

7(1977). 7(1977). CEU eTD Collection facilities. emphasising publicdemand tobeessen proved professional standardsthatitrequiredwhilenevertheless keepingwithin also demanding highprofessiona that ofprovidingadefinitionthereadingpublic used bytheregime hadpermeated culturallife.BothhisandRaduPetrescu’sendeavourswere Despite thecriticism of themarket rhetoric to provide adefinition of thereading publicshows thewayinwhichpartofmarket rhetoric 2 1 make afetishoutofthemarket planning demands; canbemadethroughothermeans aswell.” way inbetweenspontaneousproductionandorganiseddistribution;however,oneshouldnot the officialdiscourse:“Thecont readership. Atthe same time hechallenged someof the premises of themarket rhetoric usedby official discourseclaiming th different definitionofthepublicasanexperimented Theimage ofthe reader as criticize on their ownterms theeditorial po of allocation. allocation. of power the of the writers with increasing editorial plan, Writers’ the in Union determining Simionescu, “Despre târgul”. Idem. The criticism of the market fetish is used by Simionescu in order to call for a greater involvement of the of involvement call in orderto for agreater Simionescu by is fetish used criticismthe market The of printing machines. circulation valueofsome works,usele often doneaccording tobureaucraticcriteria,ignoringthe realvalue aswellthe A closelookinoneofour 1

at experimental literaturewa radiction comes from thefactth l standards. For them maintaining theircultural capitaland the bookshops may renderitobvioushoweditorialplanningis a skilled literature consumer 92 licies claiming market criteria,byproviding a ss paper-consumers andhopelessusersofthe tial inpreserving their access to publishing usedbytheofficiallineSimionescu’s attempt which might beasinclusivepossible while reader. In thiswayhe tried toundermine the s automatically devoidofany at publishing houses are half a at publishinghousesarehalfa allowed M.H. Simionescu to in the bureaucratic system bureaucraticsystem the in the officialdiscourse 2

CEU eTD Collection 1 useful symbolically, foropposingw that “even whenculture isinsulated from market opponents throughaccusations ofelitism orescapistl Defining thepublic/literatureconsum political debatesoftheperiod,apublicwhose in Writers closer to theofficial discourse empha techniques used intheir writingsbut alsoapublicacquainted totheEuropean literary tradition. supposed tobemature, intellect position inside theliteraryfield. InM.H.Si imagined throughtheseinterventions,came tobe cultural producers from thecompetition tostate re Accusations of escapism, of elitism, of failure toaddress thepublic interests of the working classand,later,ofthesocialistnation bolstering theirclaims toculturalrepr own definitions of thereadingpublicasawayof legitimising theirworks andconsequently,of literature consumer couldbede comprehensibility andpoliticalengagement we legitimise hisliteraryproducts.Thus,the AsItriedtoshow literary productswereaddre Verdery, 5.2.

The TwoPublics National Ideology, Ideology, National 95. until now,providingadefinitionof ssed wasimplied andrequiredby

fined andimagined. Thisallowe ualised, non-workingclass,abletounderstandtheavant-garde hoever sitshigherupontheladder.” esentativity andeconomicresources. er startedtobeusedsymbolicallyasameans ofcontesting mionescu and RaduPetrescu’s casethispublicwas 93 debates aboutrealismandescapism, about sised thenotion of apublicinterested inthe could readilydisqualifyawriteroranyother re closely related to the wayinwhich terest inartputlowerprofessionalstandards. in factitsrealeffectsalsomake themarket sources. Inthis sense thepublic, asitwas used asadiscursivetooltonegotiatethe iterature. Thisconfirms Verdery’sremark the reading public to which one’s the readingpublictowhichone’s d variousactorstoproposetheir the wayinwhichonecould 1

CEU eTD Collection 3 2 1 leading toastep-by-step decentr rhetoric ofmarket-demand impor Economic units,backedupbythedisciplinary different institutions managers tighter than the plan, the responsibility ofindividual mana was ashighever.Althoughthedecisionpow claiming economic independencefrom thecentrewe were stillrequired tofulfil theplansassi were supposedtocaterfortheirownneedsand Moreover,in1979,amanagement reformof Law 11 and emphasis ontheconsumer became verycommonwithinthepublicdiscourse. cover theproductioncostsn GDP. culturalmattersfunding forthe hadsteadilydeclin public debtwereintensifyingclaims foreco activity. Moreover,asthe1970seconomic crisis importance of efficiencycriteria,without allo and theattemptsofintroducingmarket strategi Theupsurgeof“thepublic”asafield rhetoric thatitinvolvedwasalsoaconsequence Macrea-Toma, Shafir, Macrea-Toma, 1 Thepublishinghouseswereincreasingly Romania, 2 affectingallpublishing Privilighen Privilighen 120. 120. ț ţ ia, ia, 163. 182. 182. ecessary fortheiractiv

alisation asitwasthecasein Hungary,the reforms introduced at housesandstateinstitutionsof tant inthenegotiations for resources. Assuch,rather than gned tothembytheCentralPublishingHouse. wing, however,afulldecentralisation ofeconomic ever. Thecontinuous dependenceoftheCentral nomic efficiencybecamemore demanding. The 94 gers increased, making thecompetition between er overtheproductionremained dependentupon es ofcontrol.The1969reform the emphasised compelled to producerevenueswhichmight of the reforms withinthebook-industryitselfof thereforms contribute substantially ed from6.7%in1950to1.7ofthenational ities and,consequently,anincreasedattention discourse ofeconomicefficiencymade the was unfoldingandtheattempts tocoverthe contestationanddefinitionthemarket re issuedwhilethemanagerial dependence all economic unitswasissuedthroughthe theculturalfield.Althoughthey to theirfunding,they 3 Reforms Reforms CEU eTD Collection 1 field: the general publicitself asthos as aresultthe factthatthe addr instrumentalisation of the literature consumer mechanisms wereused(andtoalargeextent itself. Farfrom providinganalternative mechanism tothelogicof thecultural field, market socialist logicofbureaucr andcontraryto AsItriedtoshow,however, and itsstressonsalesefficiencywasnot resources. invisible actorwhocouldbeusedbytheinte negotiation strategies inside the literary field. The large publicof literature consumers became an consumer andofthegeneralpubliccouldbe notions such asthe public,the reader, the literature economic process,made thenegotiationswithin Thestresson theneeds ofapublicwhich wa to the impossibility of getti bringing more ideologicalpressure that periodhadasaneffect acontinual reinforcement of market Verdery, reaching awideaudienceandmight ha partly toconvincethecentr Attention mayalsotu they receiveallocationsthantothewider public, yet thisis Second, Iobservedthatthepr National Ideology, Ideology, National 96. atic allocation,asitwasdeeplyembe

ng over thebureaucratic jungle, but which fuelled the whole rn, however,toamass audiencepa essee of thepublic discourse of theliterary field wasnot somuch e who couldinfluencetheallocati than actualmarketmechanism. e toallocatemore, onthegroundsthatone’sactivity is oducers’ attentiongoesmore to ve aneffectonmass consciousness. in thenegotiationprocessforstateresourceshad 95 altogether adisruptive llectuals withintheirnegotiationofeconomic the literarysphereincreasinglydependentupon ) proposedbytheoffici instrumentalised within thedebates andthe consumer etc. Referencesto theimage ofthe KatherineVerdery’s claims, market rhetoric s increasinglyvolatilea dded withintheofficialdiscourse rhetoricandofpublicdemand on decisionsinsidetheliterary rtly to wina readership and thebureaucratsfrom whom an oversimplification… mechanism ofthestate als themselves. This nd hardtograspdue 1

CEU eTD Collection intellectuals developedimplied being addressedtoaCentrewhichassessedand editorial organisations, suchastheWriters’ Union,the interests, differentresourcesandforms of the bureaucraticelite.Farfrom forming but to apublic made upof intellectuals (with or addressed not onlytoa monolithic Centre,onw their writings andthrough their out ofintellectualsandbureaucrat ContrarytoVerdery’sclaims, theproducers’ bureaucratic elite, as toacomple economic resources. administrative elitecontributed and participated political power.Patronagenetworks invol literary economy or,insome cases,become me strata wereverymuch hazy:writerscouldcontro administrative apparatus sothat the limits betwee The literaryfieldfunctionedth field were not played out infront of amonolithic Centremade outof bureaucratic administrators. As showninthefirst chapter thenegotiation a At thesame time,thispublicwasintegr

boards and,hence,thesemembers ofthepublic hadvariousdecisionalpowers.Far from a heterogeneouspublic, withdifferentreactionsand public interventions inliterarymagazines andinterviewswas s. Thepublicdiscourse x system ofpowernetworksandinformal relationshipsmade rough theco-optationofin capital, asthe debate about realism shows. a homogeneous body,thispublichaddisruptive ving writers,important Partymembers and 96 hose decisions the resource allocation depended, mbers of theCentral Committee withdecisive withoutdecisionalpowe publishing houses,culturalstateorganisation l important administrative positions withinthe took uniform decisions,thediscoursethat in rather diffuse waysatthenegotiations for n theintellectual strata andtheadministrative nd thebargainingprocess attention wasnotsomuch dedicatedtothe ated intoasystem ofinstitutionsand thattheintellectu tellectual elitewithinthe als developedthrough r), administrators and inside theliterary , CEU eTD Collection 2 1 only thefunctionofopinionmaking anddeliberation,a decisions through theaccesstoresourcesthat ithas. InFraser’s formulation, this embeddedness within state institutions allowsa public it. different formal andinformal networkswhichre the actorsinvolvedin functions withinstate institutions. institutions and(toacertainex notion ofapublicsphere,descri “opinion formation” butalsothatofdecision the deliberationsanddebatestaking placewithinthepublicspherehavenotonlyroleof FollowingNancyFraser’s differentiation be public a their chancesofgettingpublished. different groupsaswell networks whose accesstoinstituti legitimisation strategiesacknow abide therequirements oftheofficialdiscours strategy oflegitimation whichhadtocaterforthesupportofth Simionescu andRaduPetrescu’s case theattempt toprotecttheir cultural capital implied a decisional powers thatcouldaffectone’s positi She takes as an example the parliament as it appeared in the inthe 19 example the asitappeared parliament asan takes She Fraser, to backuptheiropinionformation w function Justice strong public.InFraser’sterminology astrongpublicischaracterisedbythefactthat , 90. the culturalfieldinmysecondchap

bed byHabermas, whichwas formed andcreatedoutsidestate ledged theexistenceofadi tent) asapoise tothe state,astrong publiciscreatedand 1 In this sense itclosely follows the description that Igave to making. Furthermore, unliketheclassicalliberal 97 presented thestateasmuchtheyundermined on inside theliterary e uponliterature.Thatis tween twotypes of public, Iwillcallthis th ith the powertoimplement some of these 2 century. Asaconsequence,if strong public ter: differentact fferentiated public,made upof e aestheticistcamp aswell onal powercouldaffect field. InMircea Horia implies tosaythattheir weak public ors involvedin

both of these strong has CEU eTD Collection constantly marginalised andunder-repres more difficult,asitwasthesituationin1980swhenane political capital that people have,entrance can al 3 2 1 Even inthosecaseswherethepubl efficiency thatthegeneralpublichadinchangi rhetorical device within thebattlesfor cultural the discussionsanddebates having somethingtosay inthedevelopment ofcultural policies wasvery limited. Thefact that access toresources,and the one hand,the Thepragmatic situation inwhichthepublicdiscourse withinthecultural field was formed andcreatedimplied thattheculturalpr within the does notactasacorporatebody.Atthesame time, writers power: somebureaucratsand/orPartymembers ha strong public allocation. However,unlikethemodern Parliament institutional means, thedecisionmaking proce the Writers’ Unionandpublishinghousescould processes. he has become a member of the elite through co-option. thea member co-option. elitethrough he has become of SeeR some In casessome writerscan morehave than power amember case this the in elite, but usually of bureaucratic Fraser, ă duţă 2 Justice, Justice, , thedecisionpowerisdistributedunevenl 1 , Inmy casethe opinionsformed withinthe strong public Les Jeunesloups. , theliteraryfieldand 90. 90. strong public makes itanopenspaceinwhich,de whose decisionalpowercoulddir

weak public about the public inits version ic couldinfluencedecisions, actors acting within itdono ented withinthein , thegeneralpublicwhose oducer shouldaddresstwo typesofpublic:onthe 98 resources pointsoutexac ng culturalpolicieswithin ss regardingpublishingf ways bepossible,althoughsometimes itismade , theexample thatNancyFraserchoosesasa affect, throughthepatronagenetworksand I thinkthatthisuneve y amongst theactorsandstrongpublic ve more allocative power public sphereofstateinstitutions suchas tellectual sphere. w generationofyoungwriterswas like thesalesnumber regardinga ectly affecthispositionand pending ontheculturaland as areaderwereused a t havethesame decisional power inchangingor tly tothelowdegreeof n distribution of power n distributionofpower acilities and resource- acentralis 3

thanmostof the ed culture. CEU eTD Collection 183. 4 3 2 1 Mircea Iorgulescu etc. critics andwriters from theprevious generations:NicolaeManolescu,Ov.S.Crohm marginalisation thattheyfacedcouldonlybesurpassedthrough the interventionsofimportant young studentsfromUniversityLite forward theirclaims. Thiswas the cultural andpolitical capital to act withinthe framework of the with measuring thedemand wouldfalsifyorsimplydisconsiderthenumbers. Simionescu’s criticisms oftheplanningbasedondemand requirements wasthatthoseincharge public, success orlackofcould be knownonly that thenumber ofcopies foreach bookshould film screenedin hadbeen Reconstituirea Furthermore, astherelationshipbetween sales numbers couldalwaysbeshifty:oneofNicolaeCeau critics, thiscouldbeonthecontrary not necessarilysupportinghisclaims forward theclaim inanacceptablemanner. Fo certain typeof literature, thiscouldbe avalidclaim onlyifmembers of the

accessed R His remarks areactuallycorroborated by Mali Anneli Maier, “Petru Popescu and The Problem ofLight Fiction,” ă du ţ ţă a, , Les Jeunes loups, Ceau In thissense the

May 24, 2011, http://www.osaarchivum.org/file 2011, May 24, the cultural administrators dealingwithth ş escu, was thatitdidnotappeal tothe Romani 56. 56. 4 278-285. 278-285. Theoldcriticsactedas weak public only twotheatrescountrywide.

the casewith1980sgenerati Macrea-Toma’s analyses.See Macrea-Toma, a signofthelowqualityhisprose. rary Clubs.Theirlackofsoci toresourcesorhispositioninsi could pressureforpolicych 99 r instance,Petrur Popescu’spopularsuccesswas s/holdings/300/8/3/text/52-1-28.shtml. s/holdings/300/8/3/text/52-1-28.shtml. asortofintellectualpassport,vouchsafingfor to thosewhowerealready partofthe distribution andproductionwasnotveryclear, not bemade public,theinformation aboutthe e distributionsprocess.OneofM.H. an public;the truth, however, wasthatthe RFE Background Report 1973-11-30, 2 Oncethepublishinghousesdecided on ofwriters,composed outof anges only once those who had anges onlyoncethosewhohad ş escu’s critiques for the film al andculturalcapitalthe strong publiccouldactually de thefield:forsome ofhis 1 Privilighen

3 could strong publiccould

ţ ia, ia, 148, 159, 159, 148, ă

lniceanu, strong CEU eTD Collection exclusion, asitwasthecasewith was negotiatedandassessed.Tendenciestodisr constantly takeintoaccountthehegemonic langua position insidethefield.Inordertopublish, order tolegitimise one’swork,onewassupposedtopickupthetopicswhichdefined however, theexistenceof political capital whichledtotheir reinterpretati Petrescu’s caseitwastheirattempt tofo which thedifferentactorsre-interpreted the impose asingleliterarydiscourse,theseefforts Itwasthisheterogeneity,however,which literary publicdiscourse.AsItrie heterogenous structureofthestrongpublic. that thelimitbetweentwotypesofpublicwasporousenoughtoaddupalready their inclusionwithintheliteraryfield.Theirpartial inclusionwithinth astrongpublicleadtohomogenisation ofthepublicdiscourse:in d toshowinthediscussionaboutrealism, despitetheattempt to The OniricGroup, llow amiddle ground betweenpeer-recognition and 100 official line. In M. H. Simionescu andRadu official line.InM.H.Simionescu were constantlyundermined throughthewayin M. H. Simionescu and Radu Petrescu hadto M. H.SimionescuRaduPetrescu and on of therealist doctrine. Atthesame time, ge through whichtheposition inside thefield egard theconsensus c disbanded after1971. allowed thedifferentiated structure of the e strongpublicpointsout ould easily leadto CEU eTD Collection central planningandthe bureaucr relations insecuring aplacewithintheeditorial plan.Ihaveshownhowthe formal institutions of system andtheimporta functioned IntalkingaboutsocialpracticesIhighlightedthestrategi es usedingainingaccesstothe publishing facilitiesofferedbythestate.Indoing them. cultural field,whileinthesecond focused inthefirst part of thethesis onthefo structural factorsinwhichtheirworksandth bureaucratic andliteraryadventureinsidethe than choosing them for their representativity, my intentionwasthat byfollowing their strategies theyusedforenteri Inordertoframe my analys both ofthembelongingtowhatisnowcalledthe supporting thestate’sclaims topower. symbolic resourcesandtheirmonopoly made ofknowledge them essentialincontestingor my interest came from specialposition the ofthe to describeasocialspace,the instead ofprovidinganaccount into the literaryfieldand the Thepresent thesisisan attempt todescribe the productionofcultureunderstatesocialism. I Conclusion strategies usedinsecuring access ng intotheculturalworldand cultural field,anditsformal and theintellectuals’relationshipw atic allocationofresources part Itriedtoanalysethedi is Ichoseascase nce ofinformal networksoffriends,acquaintancesand 101 eir actionswereembedded. TothispurposeI cultural field,Iwillalsodescribethemacro- rmal andinformal socialpractices withinthe soIdescribedthewayinwhicheditorial Târgovi focused onthewayinwhichawriterentered intellectuals inside the socialistregime: their some ofthestructures whichcharacterised studies twoofthewr ş te School maintaining theirposition.Rather to state resources.Consequently, were nottheonlymethods of scursive layerwhichmediated informal configuration.Partof ith theregime, my thesistried and Icloselyfollowedthe iters oftheperiod, CEU eTD Collection practice and theimpact of theofficial discourse focused againonthe way inwhichnegotiation strate which resurfacedattheendof1960s.Indesc ribing the publicdiscourse oftheintellectuals I Apartfromtheformal andinformal social in describe thefunctioningofliterarypublicsp capital. formal andinformal means wereused bydiffere cultural life andmaintaining one’s positionwas intellectuals andbureaucrats alike, cultural sphere,thestateprovidedinst positions withconsiderable allocative power.W cultural field: writersand otherintellectuals co which theintellectualsweresupposedtoreact that theintellectuals’ relationship withthe comm time administrated andadministrators. Oneofth Atthesame time Ipointedouthow,throughth administrative apparatus,thewritersandcult formal andinformal relationships also ofdistortingtheofficial way inwhichtheculturalworld representing anoppositesystem of networks were also essential intheworkings of thecultural field. Moreover, far from redistribution instate socialism: theinformal sy process ofbureaucraticallocation.Asaresultthelimits between weredifficulttodelineate. functioned. Itsrolewasthat socialisation,informal networ disputed theirclaims toresource itutional backgroundinwhichdifferentgroups, 102 stem ofpersonalisedrela uld findthemselves inimportantadministrative here byfollowingthedebatesregardingrealism e consequencesofthisambiguous was situation on literature. Myclaim wasthatthe attempts to unist regime wasnotaface tofacedialogue, in ural producerscouldhappentobeatthesame theactionsofapoliticalelitemanaging the nt actorswithvariou ithin thispicture,far from controllingthe a constantprocessofnegotiationinwhich gies were usedinlegitimising one’sliterary teractions within thefield, Ialsotried to e co-optionoftheculturaleliteinto of correcting,supplementing, but king waspartandparcelofthe s. Therefore, entering intothe s powerandsourcesof tionships andpatronage CEU eTD Collection way relationshipthatpowerandtheadmi the allureof conceptualambiguity, thelandscape th administrated byinstitutions in which theywere theadministrators. More thanaconcession to interpretations, whileitpropagate about literaturewascontinuouslyundermin their informalsocialpracticesmade, nevertheless institutions, butthese institutions werecontinuous story inwhichpowerrelationshipsfunctionthroughambiguity.The statecouldimpose interventions withinthepublicsphere wereframed. decisional power,theheterogenouscharacterof bureaucrats andintellectualswith heterogenous publictowhichth the paper,Itriedtoprovide meaning andtheirusagewasopene sphere oftheliteraryworld, thePartycouldonlysetout some of theterms of thedebates. Their undermined bytheactors’interpretationsofo impose anofficialliterarydiscoursebasedon The publicdiscourse,aswell an explanationtothisambi d itselfthroughthesemisinterpr accesstostateinstitutionsand,consequently,withpossible e intellectuals’discoursewas d tointerpretation,distortions the socialinteractionswithin nistration ofpowerpresuppose. 103 the idea of arealist literature were constantly fficial positions.Farfromcontrollingthepublic ly privatised byindividual actorswho, through , thesystemfunctional. thispublicmoulded thewayinwhich ed throughcreativea at Itried todescribe isaresult of thetwo- guous situationbydepictingthe etations. Theintellectualswere addressed. Composed outof and subversion.Attheendof the culturalfield,tellsusa The officialdiscourse

ppropriations and CEU eTD Collection Petrescu, Radu.“Ora Petrescu, Radu.“Fuga[Running].” Via [Roads].” Petrescu, Radu.“Drumuri Petrescu, Radu.“S (1964). Munteanu, Romul. “Semnifica Manolescu, Nicolae.“Despre 1-28.shtml 1973-11-30, Maier, Anneli.“Petru April 20,2011, Maier, Anneli.“TheCulturalSceneinRomania.” Iorgulescu, Mircea.“RaduPetrescu.”Convorbiriliterare18(1972). http://www.asymetria.org/modules.php? Corobdca, Liliana.“TheDeclineofthe own Dream].” Cioculescu, Sign ofanUnblemished Life(intervi Arion, George.“Oportunitateaadev Anghel, Paul.“Genulconfuz[TheConfusedGenre].” Simionescu].” Alexandru, Matei.“Dialogcu Bibliography

1.1. 1.

Primary Sources . Newspapers, Magazines

Ş accessed erban. “Artistul: st Ramuri 6(1970). Scânteia, January15,1968. http://www.osaarchivum.org/files/hol ă rutul [The Kiss].” rutul [TheKiss].” ş

ul inefabil[TheIneffable Town].” May 24,2011,http://www.osaarchivum.org/file Popescu andTheProblem ofLightFiction.” Matei Iliescu ț ia realismului [The Meaning of Realism].” ă Mircea Horia Simionescu [Dialogue with Mircea Horia pân saurobalvisuluis ă Via ew withMirceaHoriaSimionescu)].” rului: semnul uneivie Povestea vorbii ţ Communist Censorship”,accessedMarch22,2011, a Româneasc ţ name=News&file=a a Româneasc [About 104 RFE BackgroundReport1970-7-20, Matei Iliescu ă 6(1968). dings/300/8/3/te Contemporanul43(1970). 5 (1966). ă 5(1967). România Literar ă ţ u [TheArtist:Masteror Slaveofhis i curate[TheOpport rticle&sid=711 ].” Contemporanul xt/51-2-216.shtml s/holdings/300/8/3/text/52- RFE BackgroundReport ă 2(1968). Flacăra 16(1977). . Gazeta Literară unity ofTruth,as 14 (1970). . accessed 44 44 CEU eTD Collection Documentation].” Simionescu, MirceaHoria. “Despre documenta Româneasc Simionescu, MirceaHoria.“Despretârguldecarte[RegardingtheBookFair].” (1976). Simionescu, MirceaHoria.“Limbaj Via Simionescu, MirceaHoria.“Pepaginadegard (1968). Simionescu, MirceaHoria.“Cuml-amtr Raicu, Lucian.“Despre Popescu, D.R.“Leulalbastru[TheBlueLion].” Popescu, D.R.“Despreromanul actual Petrescu, Radu.“C Petrescu, Radu.“Afinit Petrescu, Radu.“Solidaritate[Solidarity].” Petrescu, Radu.“R Petrescu, Radu.“Imn patriei Petrescu, Radu.“Inter Petrescu, Radu.“Simple reflec Petrescu, Radu.“Atreiadimensi (1970). Petrescu, Radu.“Seriozitateasurâsu about theNovel].” Petrescu, Radu.“Dialecticaprezentu Petrescu, Radu.“Mic Petrescu, Radu.“Statui[Statues],” ţ a Româneasc ă 7(1977). ă 3(1976). Via ă ă România Literar r dă ț ă i, oameni, Deeds].” fapte[Books,People, ţ viu [Interview].” cinile încrederii [R enciclopedie [ASmallEncyclopaedia].” a Româneasc ăţ Proze i ş i simboluri [Affinities andSymbols].” [Hymn fortheHomeland].” [AboutProse ț ii [Simple Considerations].” une [TheThirdDimension].” România Literar ă 30(1970). ă 6(1978). lui. Opiniidespreroman [Diale ș lui [TheSeriousnessofSmile].” i realitate[LanguageandReality].” [About theContemporary Novel].” Vatra 2(1974). ă oots ofTrust].” dat pePascal[HowIBetrayedPascal].” Luceaf ].” 105 Flacăra ă Luceaf aromanului [On theTitle Pageof aNovel].” ărul ă 3(1968). rea romancierului [AbouttheNovelist’s 50(1977). ărul 15(1972). Luceaf Luceaf 24,25,26(1965). România Literară48(1972). România literară27(1972). Via Via ărul ărul România literară50(1978). ţ ţ a Româneasc ctics ofthePresent.Opinions a Româneasc 12 (1977). 46 (1976). Via Via Luceaf ț a Româneasc ţ a Româneasc ă 6(1978). ă 10(1969). ărul Luceaf 2 (1965). ărul Via ă ă 10 23 10 ţ a CEU eTD Collection Bucure scriitorului contemporan [The Cosaş Maria Catunu Ceauș Sfâr Activity, as wellas the Marxist-Leninist Education Ceau Manuscriptum Vatra 8(1978). Arge “O modalitate artistic “Personajul literar[TheLiteraryCharacter].” (1975) “Probleme deproză “Condi May 22,2011, Simu “The National Conferen and OtherPublications”. Decree No.53/1975“RegardingtheFunctionandth Decree No.301/1971. II].” Literature Ș Literature I].” Ş tef tef 1.2. ă ă ș ş ş nescu, Al.I.“Câtevaopiniidespreliteraturamodern nescu, Al.I.“Câtevaopin itul perioadeiliberalearegimuluiCeau ț 5(1972). , Ion.“Interviewwith u, Radu.“Afectiv escu, Nicolae.“A ProposalConcerning theIm escu Regime’sLiberalPeriod:TheCulturalMini-Revolution in1971,] ș ț ia romanului [TheCond ti: Editura Eminescu, 1974. Books ș Lupta declas , 121-137.Bucure 1-4 (1993). http://www.osaarchivum.org/file Lupta declas contemporan ă [AnArtisticMode].” Buletinul Oficial108(1971). itatea document ce ofRomaniaWriters.” Buletinul Oficial ă 10(1971):41-55. Mircea HoriaSimionescu.” ă 11(1971):36-43. ition oftheNovel].” Contemporary Writer’s Task,] Contemporary Writer’s Task,] ș ii despreliteraturamodern ti: Institutul Na ă [Problems ofContemporary Prose].” ă rii [TheAffectivityof Documentation].” In 51(1975). Amfiteatru ș escu: minirevolu România literar 106 s/holdings/300/8/3/pdf/51-4-199.pdf ț ional pentruStudiulTotalitarismului, 2005. RFE Background Report1972-6-15, RFE Background of allPartyMembers and Luceaf provement PoliticalandIdeological ofthe e AttributionsoftheCommittee forPress Flac 36 (1968). ărul ăra 4(2001). ă ă 43(1976). ă ț II[SomeOpinionsonModern ia cultural I[Some Opinions onModern 23 (1973). edited byAntoanetaT din 1971 [The End of ă din1971[TheEndof România literară of allWorkers].”In editedbyAna- . accessed ă Misiunea nă sescu. 24 CEU eTD Collection pentru Literatură Simionescu, MirceaHoria. 2007. Simionescu, MirceaHoria. Sântimbreanu, Mircea. 1972. Preda, Marin. Bucure Popescu, Dumitru. Amfostş Petrescu, Radu. Româneasc Petrescu, Radu. Pite Petrescu, Radu. Româneasc P European Mocanu, MarinRadu,editor. Mocanu, MarinRadu.CenzuraComunist Mali Literatur Macovescu, George.Reportajulliterar[TheLiteraryReportage.] Lovinescu, Monica. Lovinescu, Monica. Literatur Georgescu, Paul. pentru Literatură Crohm ă unescu, Adrian.Subsemnulîntreb ş ţ ti: Paralela45,2010. a, Liviu. ă ş lniceanu, OvidS. ti: Expres, 1993. ă ă ă ş , 1967. , 2006. i Artă ă ă , 1982. , 1971. Ceauş Imposibila întoarcere [The Impossible Return.] Imposibila întoarcere[TheImpossibleReturn.] P , 1969. ș , 1956. Pentru bunautilizareatimpuluiliber ărul Berenicei [Berenice’s Hair.] Polivalen Meteorologia lecturii[The i Art Unde scurteIII[ShortWavesIII.] Unde scurte[Shortwaves.] escu criticliterar [Ceau ă Caiete de editor[An Editor’sNotebooks.] , 1960.

Pentru realismul socialist [For Socialist Realism.] Bibliografia generală[GeneralBibliography.] ţ a necesar Dic Scriitorii i eucioplitordehimere[IWas ţ ionar Onomastic [Onomastic Dictionary.]ionar Onomastic[Onomastic ă [The Necessary Polyvalence.] ş i putere [The Writers and the Power.] i putere[TheWritersandthePower.] [Communist Censorship.] ă [CommunistCensorship.] rii [Question Mark.] ării [QuestionMark.] ș escu Literary Critic.] 107 Bucure Meteorology of Reading.] Meteorology ofReading.] Bucure Bucure ş ti: Humanitas, 1990. [For theProperUseofFreeTime] ș ti: CarteaRomâneasc ş ti: Humanitas, 1994. Bucure Bucure a Carver of Chimeras Too.] a CarverofChimerasToo.] Bucure Bucure Bucure Bucure Bucure ş ş ti: CarteaRomâneasc ti: Amarcord, 2000. ş Bucure ti: Vremea, 2007. ş ş ti: Editura Cartea Bucure ti: Albatros,2001. ş Bucure ş Bucure ti: Editura pentru ti: Editurapentru Bucure ă ș , 1982. ti: Humanitas, ş ş ş ti: Editura ti: Cartea ti: Editura ş ti: Ideea ă , . CEU eTD Collection 2007. Dragomir, Lucia. 2007. Dobrenko, E.A. Resistance intheModern Metropolis Burawoy, Michael.“TheExtendedCaseMethod.”In Polity Press, 1992. Bourdieu, Pierre,andLoïc J.D.Wacquant. (1986): 69-72. Bourdieu, Pierre. “L'illusion biographique.” History Biersack, Aletta."LocalKnowledge,Lo Cartea Româneasc Ţ 1983. Simionescu, MirceaHoria. Simionescu, MirceaHoria. http://www.presidency.ro/static/o Report] Comisia preziden Coman, Mihai. 301-335. Calhoun, Craig.“ThePublicSphe Socialism. London:Verso,1985. Burawoy, Michael. University ofCalifornia,1991. epeneag, Dumitru andLeonidDimov. 2.

Secondary Literature , editedbyLynnHunt,72-96.Berkeley,etc. . Bucure ş Media andJournalisminRomania. ti, 2006.AccessedJune2,2010: ț Political EconomyofSocialistRealism. ă L’Union desÉcrivains: Unein ial , 1997. ă The PoliticsofProduction:Fact pentru analizadictatur Febra [The Fever] Toxicologia [Toxicology.] Toxicologia [Toxicology.] rdine/RAPORT_FINAL_CPADCR.pdf re intheFieldofPower.” cal History:GeertzandBeyond."In , editedbyMichaelBurawoy,271-290. Momentul Oniric[TheMoment] An Invitationto Reflexive Sociology . Bucure Actes delarecherche 108 ii comuniste dinRomânia. stitution transnationale à l’Est.Paris:Belin, : UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1989. Berlin: Vista,2006. ș ti: Vitruviu,1998. Bucure ory RegimesunderCapitalismand New Haven: YaleUniversityPress, NewHaven: Ethnography Unbound:Powerand Social Science History ş ti: Editura Cartea Româneasc en sciencessociales 62.1 . Raport Final[Final The NewCultural . Cambridge: 34.3 (2010): . Bucure

Berkeley: ş ti: ă , CEU eTD Collection 2010. Literary Institutionsunder RomanianCommunism]. Macrea-Toma, Ioana. Macovescu, George. University Press,1995. Ways ofLife, Practitioners?” In Lüdtke, Alf.“Introduction:What Isthe edited byKonrad H.Jarausch,125-142.NewYork:Berghahn,1999. Volkspolizei.” In Lindenberger, Thomas. “CreatingStateSocialis University Press,2002. Laughlin, 61 (2002):35-51. Kotkin, Stephen.“TheState-IsItUs? 72. NewYork:Berghahn,1999. Experience: TowardsaSocio-CulturalHistoryoftheGDR, Jarausch, Konrad. “CareandCoercion:Th Nomenklatura oftheCommunist Party’sCentral Committee.] Ionescu-Gu Category ofBourgeoisSociety Habermas, Jürgen. University Press,2007. Gerring, John.CaseStudyResearch:PrinciplesandPractices. Romania after1945.] Gabanyi, AnneliUte. York: Routledge,1997. Fraser, Nancy. Class FormationandEliteStrugglesinPost-communistCentralEurope Eyal, Gyl,IvánSzelényi,andEleanorR.Townsley. Reconsidered.” Kritika Edele, Mark. “SovietSociety,Social Struct

Charles A. ţ a, Nicoleta. editedby Alf Lüdtke,transl Justice Interruptus: Critical Reflections on the"postsocialist" Condition Dictatorship asExperience:Toward The HistoryofEverydayLife:Recons The StructuralTransformationofth Jurnal [Journal]. Jurnal [Journal]. Chinese Reportage:theAestheticsofHistoricalExperience. Bucure Privilighen Literatura 8.2 (2007):349-373. Nomenclatorul Comitetului CentralalPartiduluiComunist[The ş ti: EdituraFunda , trans.Thomas Burger.Cambridge: MITPress,1989. ţ ş ia. Institu i politicaînRomâniadup Memoirs, Archives,andKremlinologists.” Bucure ated by William Templer, 3-40. e GDRasWelfare Dictatorship.” In ţ ii literare încomunismul românesc[Privilligentsia. ş History ofEverydayLi 109 ţ ti: Dominor, 2007. iei Române, 2001. ure, andEverydayLife: MajorFrameworks t Governance:TheCaseoftheDeutsche Cluj-Napoca: Editura Casa C Making CapitalismwithoutCapitalists: s aSocio-CulturalHistoryoftheGDR, e PublicSphere:AnInquiryintoa tructing Historical ă 1945[Literature and Politicsin edited byKonradH.Jarausch,47- Bucure ş ti: Humanitas, 2006. . London:Verso,1998. New York:Cambridge fe andWhoAreIts

Princeton: Princeton Experiencesand Russian Review Dictatorship as Dictatorship as Durham: Duke ă r ţ ii de Ş . New tiin ţă , CEU eTD Collection Minneapolis: Univers Torpey, John. 2007. Tomi Harcourt BraceJovanovich, 1979. Szelenyi, Ivan,andGyorgyKonrad. accessed May21,2011, Simu 1985. Shafir, Michael. Press, 2005. Rév, edited byDavidByrneandCharle Riain, SeánÓ.“Extendingthe Gheorghiu, 268-293.Pite Roumanie communiste.”In R Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress,1992. Foundations ofSocialInquiry Ragin, CharlesC.“’Casi Adrian Cioflâncă [Political CultureandCultural (Sub)Cultures underCommunism.” In Petrescu, Cristina. “Seven FacesofDissent:A Péteri, György.“Introduction.” Humanitas, 2001. pentru clasaaIX-a Papadima, Liviu, IoanaPâr Mugur, Florin.“JurnalulluiRaduPetrescu[RaduPetrescu’sJournal].” Complexes ofRomanianLiterature] Martin, Mircea. Mann, Michael.Fascists ă duţ ţ István. ţă , Ion.“Uncomunist onest a, Magda.“LesJeunesLoups.Genèseetaffirm , Alexandra. Retroactive Justice:Pre-hi Intellectuals, Socialism, andDissent: Romania: Politics,Economics,andSociety.Boulder. , 305-344.Ia G. C O istorieglorioas

ity ofMinnesota,1995. [Romanian LanguageandLiterature.9 ă http://www.romlit.ro/un_comunist_onest . Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress,2004. linescu ş ng’ andtheProcessof ti: Paralela45,2005. vulescu, andAlexandruCri ş , editedbyCharlesC.RaginandHowardSaulBecker i: EdituraUniversităţ Littératures etpouvoirssymboliques Ethnographic CaseStudy.”In Contemporary EuropeanHistory Politics inModern Romania] ş s Ragin,289-306.London:SAGE,2009. i complexele literaraturii române[G. C [AnHonestCommunist].” . Bucure . New York: The IntellectualsontheRoadtoClass Power.NewYork: Cultură politic [A Glorious History.] ă [AGloriousHistory.] story ofPost-Communism. ş ti: Albatros,1981. 110 Micro Perspective onthe Studyof the Political Social Inquiry.”In ii “AlexandruIoanCuza”, 2005. the East GermanOppositionand ItsLegacy. ă ș ation d’unegénérationlittérairedansla ş an. i politici culturale Limba Handbook ofCaseStudyResearch, th , edited by Alexandru Zub and Zuband byAlexandru , edited 11(2002):1-5. GradeTextBook.] Bucure . România Literar Stanford: Stanford University University Stanford Stanford: ș i literaturaroman What isaCase:Exploring Colorado:LynneRienner, , editedbyMihaiDinu Arge ş ti: Cartea Româneasc

în Româniamodern ş 1(1972). ălinescu andthe ă Bucure 36 (2007), ă. Manual 217-226. ş ti: ă ă ,

CEU eTD Collection Ţ Tudoran, Dorin.Eu,fiullor[I,theirson.] Monographic Study].”PhDdissertation,UniversityofBucharest,2007. Trifescu, Gabriela.“Mircea Horia Simionescu -Studiumonografic [MirceaHoriaSimionescu – Verdery, Katherine. 2003. Yin, RobertK. Warner, Michael. Ceaus opa, Tudor.ÎncercareaScriitorului ̧escu's Romania.Berkeley:UniversityofCalifornia,1991. Case StudyResearch:DesignandMethods.ThousandOaks:SagePublications, Publics andCounterpublics National Ideology underSocialism:Id [The Writer’s Trial.] Ia ș i: Polirom, 2010. . NewYork:Zone,2002. 111 Pite ş ti: Paralela45,2001. entity andCulturalPoliticsin