Theories of national identity were first expressed in Czech literature in the nineteenth century. During the first half of that century, the conservative conceptions (J. Malý, J. E. Vocel) stressed an ethnological conception of nation, the culture of which must allegedly be protected from Western ideas of progress, liberalism and political emancipation.1 On the other hand, Czech radical democrats (K. Sabina, J.V. Fri… from the late 1840s to the 1860s) and the May poets (J. Neruda, V. Hálek, from the late 1850s to the 1880s) emphasized a realistic depiction of Czech social reality. In their views, the Czech national community was not ideal and homogeneous, but an internally differentiated and complex entity.

The May poets fought against historicism and the mythical and irrational conception of Czech identity, both in life and culture. They criticized some of the archaic elements found in the early Czech national imagination, as well as the archaic concept of a Slavonic idea, which had lost its viability in the process of Czech modernization after the 1840s. On the other hand, they were able to express new forms of the Czech national reality: the modern way of life, not only in the village but also in the town, with its social and national contradictions, as well as the new, progressive ideas of liberty expressed in West European literature of nineteenth century. In their critique of the patriarchal conception of Czech national identity, they were able to create an ideal of a modern society through new types of imagination using new kinds of symbolic and mytho-poetic literary devices in the creative process. The reason for this syncretism was, in a certain way, political: the turning of the Czech myth towards social issues as well as bending political issues towards Czech myth.2

At the beginning of the nineteenth century, we can speak only about the existence of Czech ethnicity. During the process of the revival of the Czech nation, Jungmann’s conception of lingual patriotism (under the influence of J. G. Herder) predominated over Bolzano’s regional conception. (This problem is also typical in contemporary discussion, where Pato…ka’s extension of the duality between J. Jungmann and B. Bolzano was analyzed by P. Pithart). The real inventor of the Czech national program was F. Palacký (under the influence of Kant and Hegel), according to whom it was necessary for the Czech nation to gain moral legitimacy as a member with equal rights of Europe.

To understand the very complex problematic of Czech-Slovak relations, it is necessary to reflect on and analyze the Czech national collective consciousness and its specific understanding of Slovakia. However, the Slovaks also have specific views of the Czech people, corresponding to their unique traditions and subjective needs.3 From the nineteenth century through World War I, one can trace a certain number of works in Czech literature which were expressed the Slovak historical ordeal and depicted the specificity of Slovak national life. These works of art were conceived as a semantic expression of Slovak national identity. For instance, Slovak national culture is viewed in Boñena N�mcová’s novel, Pohorská vesnice (1856), as a sign of higher values, beauty and naturalness as opposed to the refined style of Czech bourgeois pseudo-culture.4

The modern Czech nation was finally created in the period between the 1860s and 1890s, but this nation was not able to achieve political autonomy within the Austrian-Hungarian Empire. The program of national revival had been fulfilled, but doubts about the value of the national effort appeared, expressed especially in the article of H.G. Schauer, Naše dv� otázky [Our Two Questions] in 1886. At the end of nineteenth century, the task of transforming the Czech community into a modern, emancipated civil society emerged, but led to a crisis in Czech politics. The new goals in this changed historical situation were analyzed critically by T. G. Masaryk in his 1895 book „eská otázka [The Czech Question]. According to him, national identity cannot be built upon a superficial peculiarity or even upon malice toward other nations. T. G. Masaryk refused national and class particularism and emphasized legal and ethical universalism. He showed that solidarity is not a contradiction within the process of national emancipation. T.G. Masaryk thereby began the process of the political emancipation of the Czech nation: not only the transition from Kulturnation to Staatsnation, but also the concept that inner, spiritual and moral greatness ought to redeem the Czech nation from its external, numerical and territorial smallness.

Many of the present discussions in our country, though in a different historical context and with different terminology, concern issues first raised in Masaryk’s book, The Czech Question, and then in the reflections of F. X. Šalda and Václav „erný. These questions are very similar to the problems in contemporary social philosophy and political life concerning such issues as the dignity of the person, human solidarity and respect for moral principles. Masaryk’s conception of a close connection between humanism and democracy in a small nation was expressed in continuity with the statement of the famous Czech historian František Palacký: "Every nation has not been endowed by Providence with quantity in the extensive sense of the word - but to be or to become great from an intensive point of view depends on the will and the power of everybody who does not dishonor his human destiny."5

In certain ways, the Czech nation participated in the great political, social and economic progress which took place in the Czech lands in the second half of the nineteenth century, and constituted the third largest national group in the huge Austro-Hungarian Empire.6 Reflecting upon this socio-economic situation in the Czech Lands, we note a great difference in comparison with the economic and socio-cultural factors influencing the national life of, for instance, the Serbs, Croatians and Bosnians living in the southern part of this Austro-Hungarian Empire. It should be added that the Czech people in the last quarter of nineteenth century did not suffer from such a marked "small nation" complex as do their descendants today. That is why Masaryk conceived his Czech Question as a view of what had been achieved, and as an ideological basis for the social modernization and political efforts of that time.7

There are, of course, also certain differences. H.-G. Gadamer, in contrast to R. Rorty, accents the importance of the spiritual heritage of Christianity in the life of Western society.8 Rorty conceives tradition along with a critical analysis of, and profound reflection on, the contemporary situation of American society and its future prospects. He interprets tradition therefore as historical continuity with the spiritual heritage of those historical figures in the political and cultural life of United States who have embodied the ideals of democracy, justice and equality among the citizens, especially R. W. Emerson, A. Lincoln, and M. L. King.9

In this connection, Rorty argues that we cannot escape the traditions to which we belong or "step outside our skins"10 and criticizes the American Cultural Left for lacking a sense of tradition and national identity.11 He is aware of the fact that democracy is based on free and intensive communication, which cannot be realized without a specific context which links people speaking the same language and living in the same national tradition. From that point of view, he stresses one unifying language and rejects multiculturalism which, in his opinion, could lead to the creation of new ethnic and national ghettos in the USA.

Using this analogy, if we reflect on the problems concerning the current geopolitical orientation of the Czech Republic, it is necessary to take into account questions of national identity and the danger of its loss. These dangers are caused not only by global problems, but in association with "the decline of public space in contemporary postmodern era when you cannot differentiate between higher and lower, value and interest, eternal and ephemeral".12 The problem is very important in the specific historical situation in the Czech Republic, where, unfortunately, a sense for rational political discourse often is lacking within political life. This discourse often has been substituted, especially in the first half of 1990s, with a pseudo-religious triumphalistic exaltation about the victory of good over evil, democracy over totalitarism, and market economy over socialism.

The process of globalization of the world’s economy, in addition to its positive results, could cause various manifestations of nationalism as a natural result of tendencies toward cultural unification, consumerism and the creation of the new forms of domination. Therefore, it is important for the policies of governments within the Euro-Atlantic region to take into account the cultural, historical and national specificities of the states in Central and Eastern Europe. Otherwise, the so-called "struggle against nationalism" could be understood by many people there as promoting the global-strategic interests of Western countries, and thereby American, British, French and German nationalism. It must be remembered that, especially in the 1860s, German nationalism and expansionism in Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia was often masked by ideas of liberalism, free market and civil society. The Czech people were germanized through the great power of the German owners of factories, especially in the border areas within the Czech region.13

Owing to these historical and political reasons, we ought to consider the problem of national identity along with a deep analysis of the category of tradition. It is necessary not only to use the methods of philosophical and historical reflection, but also to take into account various elements from contemporary sociology and psychology. As the founder of analytical psychology Carl Gustav Jung pointed out that the more the human being is subjected to the alienating mechanisms of the modern world based on the principle of efficiency, "the greater is the danger he will be lost in one-sidedness and will abandon the laws and roots of his being". 14

The so-called "progressive" ideals are more abstract, less natural because they demand disloyalty to tradition. Real progress in solidarity, humanity and cooperation between social and ethnic groups can be achieved only with various cultural contradictions and by overcoming tendencies which hold one back: "The greater the differentiation of consciousness, the greater also the danger of separating from the roots. "15

We cannot reflect on the problem of democracy without deep reflection on the problems of tradition and national identity. Democracy is based on open dialogue and intensive communication which cannot exist without ties and connection among people speaking the same language. One of the features of the national state is its ability to engage the people in their "loyalty to a certain culture, a certain language, a certain style of identification".16 On the other hand, the national tradition ought to be based on a consensus within an historically concrete community which respects the principles of democracy, dialogue, tolerance and solidarity.

The problem of solidarity, from a philosophical point of view, was reflected upon in Plato and in Aristotle who in his Nicomachean Ethics stressed that the members of a civil society need to be of one mind and heart for the common weal. But Aristotle also emphasized the distinctive reality of the individuals within a civil society. Although "the individual is dependent on the community in order to live a truly human life", society is ultimately for its members, not the other way round.17 In this context, Carlos Eduardo Maldonado emphasizes that "solidarity is not simply a transitory phenomenon, but constitutes one of the fundamental structures of the human being".18

The contemporary situation calls for reflection on the possibilities of applying this principle within the conditions of the very complex socio-political situation of the Czech Republic. During the 1970s, Jan Pato…ka conceived the category of solidarity as a state of being moved: "solidarity of the ones who have been moved". In Pato…ka’s conception the living substrata of this type of solidarity are those "who have suffered the clashes of history with violence and the loss of rights".19 Obviously, Pato…ka’s view was conceived under the specific historical situation of the totalitarian regime of "real socialism". Therefore this concept of solidarity, in spite of its philosophical profundity, cannot be sufficient in the current democratic society. A new concept of solidarity demands a careful analysis of the specificity of Czech society in the present era.

The economic and political problems, the danger of creating a consumer and economically oriented society can be reflected upon adequately only along with a deep analysis of contemporary forms of power. For this we ought to use the category of sensus communis, which has its roots in Roman culture and the Christian tradition, but also was used in England during the period of the special compromise or modus vivendi between the conquerors and the defeated after the Glorious Revolution (1688). The notion of sensus communis (shared sense) was perceived and elaborated on from a theoretical point of view by the English philosopher Anthony Ashley Cooper Earl of Shaftesbury (1671-1713) as the special sense of social obligation, mutual understanding and agreement: "A public spirit can come only from a social feeling or sense of partnership with human kind".20. This ability for consensus, based on "the discourse and praxis of human rights, solidarity and subsidiarity"21 is more important than abstract appeals to moral transformation.

1. See J. Malý, "Vlastenectví a kosmopolitismus" [Patriotism and Cosmopolitism], „asopis …eského musea 31 (1857), Vol. 1, p.96-109. J. E. Vocel, "Naše doba" [Our Time], „asopis „eského musea 23 (1849), Vol. 2, pp. 141-157.

3. F. Vodièka, "„eský literární mýtus o Slovensku" [Czech Literary Myth on Slovakia], Orientace (1969), Number 1, p. 8.

5. F. Palacký, Spisy drobné I. Spisy a Ëe…i z oboru politiky. [Minor Works I. Works and Lectures from the Branch of Policy] (Praha, 1898), p. 375.

6. See J. StËítecký, "The Czech Question a Century later", Czech Sociological Review, Volume 3, Number 1 (Spring 1995), p. 60.

12. V. Bìlohradský, "Kapitalismus glasnos’ a perestrojka teprve …eká" [Capitalism has been only waiting for glasnost’ and perestroika], in: Právo (November 6, 1997), supplement Salon, p. 3.

13. See the articles in the journals Svoboda (1867-1868, 1871-1873) and Pravda (1867) during the 1860s and 1870s. For the economic problems of globalism compare R. B. Reich, The Work of Nations (Preparing Ourselves for 21th Century Capitalism) (New York, 1991). Czech translation: R. B. Reich, Dílo národù. PËíprava na kapitalismus 21. století. Translated by M. Calda (Praha, 1995). (Published in Czech with the help of U.S. Information Agency.)

14. Srov. K. Kerényi and C. G. Jung, V�da o mytologii [Science on Mythology] (Brno, 1995), s. 86.

16. See V. B�lohradský, "Kapitalismus glasnos’ a perestrojka teprve …eká" [Capitalism has been only waiting for glasnost and perestroika], in: Právo (November 6, 1997), supplement Salon, p. 3.

19. See J. Pato…ka, KacíËské eseje o filosofii d�jin [Heretical Essays on the Philosophy of History] (Praha: Academia, 1990), p. 141.