Research Area 2
Debates Concerning the Conditions of Successful Communitization (Kleinmann, Pečar)
In the Early Modern Period (16th-18th century), the conditions for successful communitization were a matter of general consensus. In particular, religious and denominational homogeneity and “purity” played a key role. The degree to which religious beliefs were binding varied significantly between different states, and they reflected upon and dealt with the experience of heterogeneity using a wide variety of strategies. This can be seen in their discourses about identity and foreignness, in the formation of political norms, in techniques for creating identity through rituals of demarcation, as well as in techniques of dissimulation and adoption of religious “ambiguity”. States additionally attempted to establish bindingness using societal norms outside of religious categories of meaning.
In this respect, the 18th century was a period of transformation. In addition to states making normative demands of their subjects, citizens were also expected to identify with the state – that is, they were supposed to be willing and prepared to act in the common interest and put aside particularlist concerns. This attitude was justified using theoretical concepts such as “public spirit”, “sense of community”, “civic-mindedness”, and “patriotism” that were given normative value as a metacategory to describe the cohesion of civil society.
In addition to the theoretical justifications for the sources and effects of “public spirit”, another particularly promising subject of investigation is the concrete spheres in which this activity took place – from self-governance and honorary appointments, to various forms of charitable action, to participation in military defence. In the liberal theories of the 19th century, the preparedness to “die for one’s country” was valued as the highest form of civic virtue and a demonstration of the ultimate commitment. In the present era, an important question is how promising and forgiving can function as modes of generating and perpetuating bindingness under conditions of plurality and uncertainty about the effects of political actions; promising is thereby understood as a mode of mobilizing action and forgiving as a mode of dealing with failures. Both are to be explored theoretically and with the helpf of concrete case studies.