Rizika jinakosti: kulturní opozice před rokem 1989 jako předmět výzkumu

Abstract

Co mají společného fotbaloví fanoušci, bytové divadlo a katolické exilové periodikum? Především vztah k badatelskému poli, ve kterém se musejí autoři vypořádat s otázkami vztahu dané skupiny či projektu ke státní moci a s různou výpovědní hodnotou konkrétních pramenů k těmto citlivým otázkám. Kniha, jež vzešla ze soutěže pro mladé badatele a badatelky, přináší tematicky rozmanité texty o bytovém divadle, vězeňských tetováních, fotbalových fanoušcích, vztahu disentu a StB, televizní tvorbě či exilovém časopisu před listopadem 1989. Texty, vycházející nejčastěji z výzkumu pro studentské závěrečné práce, zachycují náročný proces badání, volby pramenů a vhodných nástrojů k interpretaci i následnou konfrontaci pojmových nástrojů s pramenným materiálem. Tento aspekt podtrhuje také formát „interpretace pramene“, který je připojen ke každému textu. Dnes už nezávislá a alternativní kultura představuje standardní téma výzkumu věd o společnosti i v českém prostředí. Projekt COURAGE, v rámci kterého vznikla i tato kniha, přichází s pojmem „kulturní opozice“. Jeho prostřednictvím testuje hranice „opozičnosti“ a hledá nové možnosti pro studium našich dějin druhé poloviny 20. století.

The texts contained in this book are replies to a call for papers which we formulated at the end of 2016.1 There were several reasons why we decided to publish the six studies which passed the competition process. In addition to our respect for the work which the authors carried out as part of the competition, we also decided to do this as we were convinced of the need to promote interesting contemporary research by young scholars. Another reason was that when we looked at the texts from the research competition in their entirety, we would ask, for example, what do football fans, ‘apartment’ theatre and Catholic exile periodicals have in common? The answer was mainly the common research field in which the authors had to examine the aforementioned questions concerning the relationship between a given group or project and the representatives of power, and the relevance of specific sources in terms of these sensitive questions. Therefore, these texts, which were usually based on the students’ research for their theses, also capture the demanding research process, the choice of sources, suitable interpretive tools and the subsequent juxtaposition of these conceptual tools with the source material. This aspect is also underlined by the format of “source interpretation”, which is connected to each text. The authors selected an excerpt from a source which was connected to their research work and added a brief description and proposed interpretation. These annotated source excerpts enable a better understanding of the context in which they are set and also give us a glimpse of the authors’ interpretive process. For example, Pavel Kovařík added to his text a unique insight into the chronicle of the Bohemians fans, and without being carried away by its aura, suggests key questions from the reading of this source. Jakub Hošek used a media image for his theme, comparing the popular personal memoirs of Pavel Landovský with records from the repressive apparatus, pointing out their mutual incompatibility. By both studying and interpreting the sources we can describe two of this publication’s central points: the research process for studying cultural opposition and the nature of the sources which we have at our disposal. The book which you are holding can be read in several ways. We are proud of the thematic variety of the collection of texts: ‘apartment’ theatre, prison tattoos, football fans, television programming and an exile periodical represent what is both difficult and attractive about this field. This involves complex, multi‑ layered phenomena and practices which are all part of the concept of cultural opposition. From our perspective, it is about testing a particular concept which has not yet been established in the Czech Republic, where an overly broad definition might cause certain problems from a conceptual viewpoint. This can also be seen in the variety of sources and collections. As well as being motivated to read this book through an interest in a particular theme, we would also like to suggest the possibility of reading the book with a focus on how the authors themselves understand the theme, and how this fits in with established ideas and their related concepts. What methodological approaches can be used in the study of cultural opposition? From our perspective, the least preferred way of reading this is from a generational view. Although this collection does in fact contain texts by young researchers, what we will see through this lens is more our own ideas of historical science and how it should appear, rather than a representative “generational testimony”. The objective of the original competition and the book itself were never based on any claims of being representative. In this book about cultural differences, the risks of otherness are linked to nonconformist attitudes, ideas and behaviour in Czechoslovakia before 1989. It concerns risks which people were aware of when they organised theatre performances in their apartments, or when they wrote down guidelines on how to behave if confronted by State Security. Prisoners ran other risks when they let themselves be tattooed by their fellow inmates. In doing so they became part of a specific criminal community, but at the same time the motifs they chose set themselves against the existing political system. The risks connected with establishing a second state television channel had completely different consequences: did those who create the second channel realise that many of their programmes would never end up on screen? There were different kinds of risks during different periods and our understanding of them can tell us much, not only about particular people and groups, but also about Czechoslovak society as a whole under state socialism. However, for this we will undoubtedly require a large number of studies based on well‑ sourced analyses. To a certain extent this book is also about the risks which await contemporary historians. Is the separate category of “otherness” in itself a suitable starting point for formulating research questions? Did expressions of cultural opposition arise from dialogues with the ideological discourse of the time or as its clear negation and expression of resistance? In this book you will find a whole range of possible answers to these questions. However, we do not claim that our objective is to provide exhaustive answers. Instead, the book which you are holding offers insights into the process in the search for these answers.