art-e-conomy _ reader - marko stamenkovic

108
The ‘elitist discourse’, categorising the post-socialist transition, also figures in
specific ways in political rhetoric and other rhetorical utterances of Hungarian society.
Currently prevailing rhetoric concentrates almost exclusively on one particular form of
the otherwise very complicated transition of elites. There has been a lot of attention
given to the fact that many ex-functionaries seem to have been quite successful in
accommodating to the new economic conditions. Thus, ‘discourse’, determining
the course of scientific research and interpretation, and rhetoric, spontaneously
articulated in society, will also be at variance here (which is a good example of the
extreme complexity of the post-socialist transition). The actual social consensus has
not been directed against managers of the latest period of socialist rule. These had
already acted within the system of feasible socialism more as pragmatic political
managers than functionaries in the traditional sense of the word. The close attention
given to this group embodies rather an experience shared by many in Hungarian
society, namely that, as mentioned above, whatever their actual merits may be, they
stand no chance of becoming part of the elite in the new democracy.
The socio-psychological ‘discourse’ shows the post-socialist transition from yet
another perspective. It focuses on those dimensions of the transition that earlier
(and since then discredited) scientific terminology would have labelled as mass
psychology. The socio-psychological ‘discourse’ of the post-socialist transition has
indicated an unexpected and incredibly advantageous initial situation. Without
discussing socio-psychological problems in the system of feasible socialism, it can
be safely said that the extraordinary socio-psychological setting of the post-socialist
transition has contributed a great deal to making it a unique and unprecedented
historical event. The success of the new period has by no means depended on a
socio-psychological breakthrough as the masses themselves were able to draw the
line between old and new in Berlin, Temesvár or Moscow.
Nevertheless, it can be concluded that the new democratic elites have failed
to sustain the enthusiastic spirit of the beginnings of the transition. In terms of
the socio-psychological ‘discourse’, this can be attributed to the twofold failure of
the new political elite to develop an adequate strategy. These elites have naturally
tended to organise themselves along party lines. They have failed, however, to take
up general tasks such as the reorganisation of society, democratic mobilisation and
democratic education. Consequently, they could not channel the outstanding supply
of socio-psychological energies available at the beginning into the everyday life of the
new political system. On the other hand, they have also shown a politically motivated
‘jealousy’ towards socio-psychological processes and occurrences that could not be
suited to party purposes. As a result of these two developments, partly deliberate, partly
spontaneous, the new democracies have found themselves in a socio-psychologically
sensitive situation. Nonetheless, this situation cannot be compared to that in the
Weimar Republic, because, from a psychological point of view, post-socialist societies
cannot be said to have rejected the new democracy as masses in Weimar had done.
On the basis of the various products of the socio-psychological ‘discourse’, I would
be more inclined to categorise the manifest discontentment in the present sociopsychological
situation as an attitude of depression rather than hostility towards the
new circumstances. It is unfortunate that many analysts, politicians and the press have