Comments on Carsten Humlebaek`s seminar paper, `Constructing Continuity in PostFranco Spain`
First of all, let me express my appreciation towards Carsten`s way of approaching the
complex issues raised by his selection of the terms continuity, identity and the nation
as his main conceptual framework. I am convinced, however, that there are still
possibilities to touch upon various further topics. My comments, therefore, concern
one of these.
My emphasis would be laid on the concept of discourse which seems to be a central
analytical tool of the paper regarding the introductory parts. However, it is difficult to
grasp a clear definition of how this concept is used. I definitely miss it concerning the
great number of its accessible understandings. Carsten himself seems to use the notion
in different ways, which is not problematic in itself since discourse has more than one
legitimate meaning in scholarly works. The problem is rather that due to its not
precise clarification it is not obvious how the concept supports the argument of the
paper in different paragraphs.
In my point of view there are at least three different comprehension of discourse could
be revealed from the paper. According to the first one discourse – and in this regard
the term is used plural – means to certain sets of opinions or values appearing in
public utterances. The second meaning refers to various forms of public speech each
of them has its own logic and coherency. Whereas the first one concerns mainly the
content, this one deals rather the form of linguistic expressions. The third
comprehension of discourse considers it as a mean of ordering reality even
contradictory entities in order to dominate, provide norms and produce identities.
Regarding the purpose of the paper which is to connect discourse analysis to the
formation of a political system, that of democracy it seems necessary to define a
relationship among the different conceptions of discourse. The paper provides the
reader with a well written description of how politics affects discourse (that is where
the different political interests were connected to appropriate forms of public speech),
however it would be also extremely interesting to examine how discourse influences
politics. That is to say how democracy as a political practice was formed through its
various understandings or even objections and what sort of identities and values were
created.
It is also a fascinating question whether the myth of peaceful transition worked as a
discourse. A fruitful comparison could be executed with a Foucaultdian use of the
term. If we see madness as a discourse, it is revealed how it produces the identities of
the madman and the normal human being. However, the discourse of madness does
not only legitimize the dominance of normal men over the mad ones, it also
legitimizes a certain structure of the exercise of power. The discourse states that due
to the existence of madmen it is required to train medical and psychiatric experts and
to create institutions like medical asylums. It even calls for a system of controlling the
population in order to ascertain their normality or deviation. The madman, however, is
not the enemy of the system; its existence is required to create it. Madness is not the
opposition or resistance of medical control, it is a necessary part of its functioning.
That is why the institutions themselves are interested in producing and creating the
identity of madness. In a way the system itself creates its own resistance in order to
form the structure of power. I believe that the peaceful transition created a certain way
of practicing power, as well. Probably the discourse produced certain threats in order
to define its own identity.
A second point of mine concerns the concept of continuity. I have found it very
challenging how Carsten elaborated two different meanings of the concept. In general
I agree on both definitions. My remark is made only because of he used the second
understanding of continuity to state that what Hungarian communists tried could be
consider as a formation of continuity as well. (See of course, the comments on my
paper). However, I believe that neither of Carsten`s definitions involve an avoidance
of the linear concept of history, whereas the communist party in the 1950 attempted to
form a consciousness of history based on a sense of repetition of identical phenomena
which eventually was a circular conception of the historical process.
All my other points were basically suggestions on readings and possible ways of
further work. There is no sense to repeat them in written form. Let me finish with a
personal remark, I especially liked Carsten`s paper since its general points contributed
to the clarification of my own ideas on a series of events happened in a distant time
and space.
Péter Apor