Talk by George Greskovits
On 23 November, George Greskovits presented the subject of his doctoral work: representations of the Holocaust in post-1989 Hungarian political discourse. Having completed a degree in history and an MA in Holocaust Studies at Royal Holloway College, George is conducting his research at UCL-SSEES under the supervision of Dr Egbert Klautke and Dr Richard Mole.
George began with an exposition of his epistemological enquiries: the representation of the events of the Holocaust in public discourse, and how these events emerge in such representations. Beginning by noting that Jews have always been coterminous with modernisation in Hungary, he went on to summarise the main sites of representation since 1989. First, Imre Nagy’s theatrical reburial in 1989 acted as a reconfiguration of Horthy’s funeral for the MDF under József Antall (Magyar Demokrata Fórum, Hungarian Democratic Forum), whose attempts to rearticulate the values of the interwar period stood in stark contrast to the SZDSZ’s (Szabad Demokraták Szövetsége, Alliance of Free Democrats) emphasis on pragmatic management of the country, and the establishment of liberal values. The creation of the Dohány utcai emlékmű (the memorial to Holocaust victims at the central synagogue on Dohány utca) in 1990 proved to be an early focal point for competing narratives. By 1994, when the MSZP (Magyar Szocialista Párt, Hungarian Socialist Party) won the general election, any centre of political consensus had already evaporated. George argued that by this time, a clear line of communication was already open between the MDF and MIÉP (Magyar Igazság és Élet Pártja, Hungarian Justice and Life Party).
When Fidesz (Fiatal Demokraták Szövetsége, Alliance of Young Democrats) led by Viktor Orbán won the 1998 election, they attempted to put Antall’s soft revisionist ideas into hard practice, most notably with the proposal of the Status Law. The millennial celebrations of 2000, and the rigmarole involving St. Stephen’s crown being shipped from the National Museum to a consecration ceremony in Esztergom Cathedral, and then installed in Parliament, sharpened the divisive theatrics of the Right. Where Antall had resuscitated Horthy for immediate post-Socialist politics, Orbán chose Pál Teleki (Prime Minister 1920-1, and later 1939-41, when the second zsidótörvény – “Jewish Law” – was introduced). Fidesz’s rather selective, if not fanciful, approach to history is, George argued, best illustrated by the opening of the Terror Háza (House of Terror) museum, at Andrássy út 60, in 2002. The Terror Háza is (1) a site of commemoration, which (2) performs a museum/educational function, as well as being (3) a centre of political representations, in which no distinction is made between historical and made-up exhibits. Dedicated to the victims of totalitarianism (here, the Arrow Cross and the Socialists), and designed to elicit primarily reactions from visitors, the Terror Háza constitutes something of a historical ‘happening’, a liberation from timing, facts and context.
Referring to István Rév’s article ‘Ellenforradalom’ (‘Counterrevolution’, Beszélő, 1999), and Gábor Gyáni’s notion of the double structure of Hungarian society, George argued that the distinction between reasonable and unreasonable utterance has gradually disintegrated, and that Hungarian intellectuals still struggle for legitimacy. Discussion touched upon the significance of Hannah Arendt’s thought for contemporary scholars, the problematic equation of totalitarianisms, and the value of transnational comparison, specifically between discourses surrounding the Holocaust and victimhood in Hungary and Austria.
Editor’s top tip: those who read Hungarian might enjoy this table of comparisons between Viktor Orbán and Eminem (cache) from the now-defunct Matula Magazin.