In a recent interview, history professor Vladimír Vlnas noted that since December, the Czech Republic has been governed by Andrej Babiš's cabinet, which invokes the "defence of national interests," while the Ministry of Culture promotes the slogan of "national culture." According to the historian, these terms are neutral in themselves — what matters is the specific content poured into them.
Vlnas points out that the adjective "national" has, since the Enlightenment, been associated with institutions and events of special significance — and this doesn't necessarily have anything to do with nationalism. No one expects, for instance, that the National Theatre should stage only plays by Czech authors, or that the National Gallery should exhibit exclusively Czech artists.
According to the historian, "national culture" can mean either traditional folk culture or artistic movements inspired by it — such tendencies were visible in Czech art and literature in the 19th century and again after 1918. When they developed in dialogue with broader European trends, the results were beneficial — especially around the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries.
Fortunately, the professor notes, the Ministry of Culture has only limited tools for regulating cultural life, and its understanding of "national culture" will become clear from policy documents such as the ministry's cultural policy.
Vlnas believes that defending national interests can in itself be a worthy goal — provided those advocating it understand that Czech interests are always intertwined with the interests of other national and supranational structures. He cites political thinkers from Havlíček and Palacký to Masaryk (before 1914), who rightly believed that Czechs would best protect their national interests under the "umbrella" of the Habsburg monarchy.
As for the current government, the historian is convinced that "defence of national interests" here is little more than a nice-sounding slogan. Given the motley, ideologically unstable character of the ruling coalition, virtually anything can be squeezed under that formula, and instead of real action, society mostly hears talk.
Vlnas explains that this kind of rhetoric is not returning to public discourse for the first time — the dialogue of "Czech/national versus European/global" has been running continuously since the 19th century. In his view, the current government is unable to raise genuinely fundamental issues in the economy and social sphere, let alone the country's geopolitical future, because it is too afraid of its own voters — and so fills the void with rhetoric, not without some success. The historian notes that some previous governments behaved in much the same way.
According to the professor, in the 20th century the concepts of "national interests" and "national culture" were most actively used during the Second Republic — unfortunately, most often in the sense of "cleansing" the nation and culture of "destructive Jewish and cosmopolitan influences." Those blamed for such influences included not only outright fascists but also, for example, Catholic authors who used the term for Masaryk's democracy, which had collapsed at Munich.
The historian recalls that the word "national" carried an antisemitic undertone even among major writers of earlier generations — Neruda, Svatopluk Čech, the Mrštík brothers. He advises students to remember that what is called the "national revival" in the Czech case is, when applied to neighbouring nations, referred to as the "rise of nationalism" — and words matter here.
Asked how he would define the "average Czech," Vlnas answered unambiguously: no such thing exists. Unless one takes as a key the sports chant "Whoever doesn't jump isn't Czech!" — in which case the "average Czech" would turn out to be something like the cartoon character Pepek Výskoč.
Source: novinky.cz