Public intellectuals, ideological options, and “political religions”. The case of interwar Romania
The main goal of this contribution is to discuss the intellectuals’ social and political role. By placing this issue within the timeframe of interwar Romania all I do is to subscribe to a line of research whose minimal aim is to assume the past. Of course, this is not a new thing, seeing that the entire European area is still owing an answer to the question: “why was totalitarianism possible?”. From my viewpoint, a major role in the creation of the conditions of possibility for the political evil specific to this type of regime was played by intellectuals. In this respect, my intention is to show that, including in the Romanian area, well-known intellectuals were not mere prisoners of totalitarian illusions – regardless of whether we refer to Nazism or Bolshevism – but they were actively involved, through their writings and public speeches, in the promotion of these genuine “political religions”. The beliefs which dominant intellectuals managed to impose, in a given socio-historical context, as a realissimum – a term taken from Eric Voegelin’s political theory – were able to alter the socio-political evolution of entire societies and even to justify violence. Thus, they justified precisely the anti-political nature of totalitarian ideologies. In my opinion, this interpretative analysis is also applicable to some famous intellectuals from interwar Romania.
Keywords: interwar Romania, intellectuals, ideology, political religions, authoritarianism, crisis of democracy
1 Giovanni Sartori, Teoria democraţ iei reinterpretată, Editura Polirom, Iaşi, 1999.
2 Robert Dahl, Poliarhiile. Participare şi opoziţ ie, Editura Institutul European, Iaşi, 2000.
3 Arend Lijphart, Modele ale democraţ iei. Forme de guvernare şi funcţ ionare în treizeci şi şase de ţ ări, Editura Polirom, Iaşi, 2000.
4 Joseph A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Routledge, London and New York, 2003, p. 269.
5 Mattei Dogan, Comparaţ ii şi explicaţ ii în ştiinţ a politică şi în sociologie, Editura Institutul European, Iaşi, 2010, pp. 241-261.
6 Samuel Huntington, The Third Wave. Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman and London, 1991.
7 Marta Petreu, De la Junimea la Noica. Studii de cultură românească, Editura Polirom, Iaşi, 2011, pp. 205-504.
8 In this respect, Sabin Drăgulin shows that “(…) Nae Ionescu’s anti-democratic stance is defined. The discreditation of democracy, both as a theory and as a practice, was the basic motif in Ionescu’s discourse” – Sabin Drăgulin, „Nae Ionescu şi legitimarea extremei drepte româneşti”/”Nae Ionescu and the legitimation of the Romanian far right”, in Sfera Politicii, nr. 150/2010, p. 64.
9 Adrian-Paul Iliescu, Anatomia răului politic, Editura Ideea Europeană, Bucureşti, 2005, p. 291.
10 Mark Lilla, Spiritul nesăbuit. Intelectualii în politică, Editura Polirom, Iaşi, 2005, p. 220.
11 Eric Voegelin, Religiile politice, Editura Humanitas, Bucureşti, 2010, p. 74.
12 Robert C. Tucker, Filosofie şi mit la Karl Marx, Editura Curtea Veche, Bucureşti, 2011.
13 Eric Voegelin, Op. cit.. p. 141.
14 Daniel Şandru, „Aspecte ideologice în sociologia politică a lui Petre Andrei”, in Transilvania, Nr. 11 / 2011, pp. 41-42.
