We live at a time of reorganization of the Romanian society. We try to find out the aims and course for economic and cultural progress. We are still recovering from communism but wish to rebuild the civil society and to open towards other cultures. Today’s world is reconsidering its values and wishes to revitalize commmunity life by bridging the gap between post-modernism and tradition. (1)

Civil society—for whose description George F. McLean appeals to Aristotle—implies governing as an exercise of the human freedom. Thus, inside of such governing, all initiatives come from individuals belonging to its groups and sub-groups. It also implies communication and solidarity of an individual with other members of his group and participation or subsidiary of those groups within the whole.

Therefore, communication is one of the mechanisms to form the civil society. The damaging of communication during communism has made relations among individuals become precarious and uncertain and the society becomes permeable to power. (2)

According to Françoise Thom, the "langue de bois" (3) blocks the way to communicate ideas as central planning blocks the way for the goods.

We have looked for those paradigms of authentic communication within the activity of the Junimea literary association. One of the reasons why we have chosen this association is the following one: all totalitarian regimes (or authoritarian ones) in the modern history of Romania definitely rejected this cultural model (tried to restrict its influence respectively), for fear of the destabilization of that dictatorship and authority respectively.

The Junimea cultural association (its name comes from the Latin "iuvenis"—young) was set up in 1863-1864 during Romania’s transition from a patriarchal/agrarian society to the modern/European society of market economy and democracy. The aim of this association was to adjust the Romanian society to the newly established Western-type institutions set up in a great number and in a very short time. In other words the imported "patterns" had to be adjusted to the local "background". Junimea relied on this foundation to forge a type of culture able to stand up to the European standards and remain nonetheless Romanian as well as European, specific and universal. (4)

Whenever there has been encountered in Romania a crisis of values, the humanist intellectuals appealed to the spirit of Junimea. It would be worth reviewing the most relevant moments of such crises. Between 1930-1940 the Romanian political life witnesses the coming to power of the Extreme Right promoting a fanatic and intolerant fascist-like nationalism. In this context, the greatest literary critic of the time, E. Lovinescu, makes a personal stand: he writes several books on Junimea and its founder, Titu Maiorescu. (5) These books are not only research works in the field of literature but also a memento meant to remind us of a model able to bring all extremes to a balance. We quote hereunder from his monography entitled T. Maiorescu (1940): "At the criss-cross, Romanian culture keeps vigil now as ever his illuminating finger: this is the way". (6)

During the military regime of marshal Ion Antonescu (1941-1944), the literary critics educated in the tradition of Junimea and of Titu Maiorescu always made a stand against the danger of misjudgement of values and subordination of the esthetic criterion in the study and promotion of literature. "Back to Maiorescu!" or "Go forward from Maiorescu!" became slogans of the time in Romanian culture.

The most relevant period for the importance of the Junimea association in the Romanian cultural history is highlighted by the first two decades of the communist regime forced on the country after World War II, especially during 1948-1960. Junimea literature and theoretical thinking, as well as their posterity, were either totally denied, banned from libraries, from all curricula—i.e. Maiorescu’s works—or selectively published and dogmatically interpreted, quite restrictively and falsified (e.g. Mihai Eminescu, the greatest Romanian poet). The regime imposes labels as: "reactionary", "instruments of the exploiting classes", "idealists", "cosmopolitans", "bourgeois" (all having a negative connotation at the time). After 1960 takes place the so-called "ideological defrost". Actually this marks the insidious passage from a Bolshevik regime to a national-communist one. Under the circumstances the Power advances the idea of "turning to good account our literary heritage". This syntagm used by the communist officials of the time betrays the endeavour of the regime to strengthen its position and become popular through tradition. Despite the permanent "critical" and incomplete "turning to good account" during communism, the intellectuals took some profit by waging the "battle" during the first half of the ’60s to re-establish the values Junimea had promoted. Once having recognized such values they proceeded in order to lift the ban over the others or to publish "uncensored" works.

Therefore Junimea and Maiorescu are the exponents of this process of revival of tradition. Moreover, for the writers of the ’60s (the most brilliant post-war Romanian generation of artists), to relate to such traditional values—starting with those of Junimea—meant to start again their dialogue with Europe. To choose Junimea (i.e. its spirit ) and to choose its posterity—for instance the kind of literary and esthetic criticism as that of E. Lovinescu and other literary critics between the World Wars—actually was viewed as an act of a dissident and a conspirator.

We can claim the aforesaid since such an act implied to dissociate literature from ideology and it is widely known the regime demanded that only "partisan" and "militant" literary works should be created. To cut a long story short: all literature had to praise the Power. For the Romanian intellectuals oppressed by the communist regime, Junimea values became a ‘lucky charm’ and an antidote against such slavery and mystification of the status of arts and literature. First and foremost, through Maiorescu, Junimea succeeded in 1870 to dissociate values and succcessfully claimed the autonomy of the esthetic value as compared with others (i.e. scientific, ethical, political, etc). Moreover, Junimea had imposed the concept of literature independent from political power.

After 1970, the Romanian national communism faked the so-called "protochronism". As Bolsheviks before them, who had proclaimed Russian and Soviet priorities in all fields of activity, the "protochronists" searched in the past of national culture for all sorts of signs anticipating the world discoveries and inventions. Under the circumstances the Romanian humanist intellectuals would relate again to the Junimea model. This time they would use—either openly or implicitely—the criterion of Junimea: "patriotism within the limits of truth". (This syntagm summarizes the fundamental requirement of Junimea: evaluate the Romanian works according to criteria applicable for European and world culture.)

The regime encouraged the group of "protochronist" writers. This group accused the Writers’ Union—that was itself a feeble model of a hypothetical civil society, promoting esthetic evaluation criteria of literary works—of being "cosmopolitan", having "relations with the Western world" and especially of "high treason" and having relations with "the spies" from the "Free Europe" broadcasting.

The opening to the world and the respect of values to be traced back to Junimea would again face intolerance and confusing values and criteria. We think that the above brief historical outlook is sufficient to define the value of identity word (7) used by Junimea’s representatives, as well as its impact in forging personalities and groups of intellectuals. Would it be possible to do or repeat today Junimea’s experience entirely? Definitely not. Nevertheless one can experiment hic et nunc with models of communication introduced in the Romanian tradition or perfected by this association of intellectuals.

Junimea establishes a model of freedom of association and of non-bureaucratic efficiency. During its weekly meetings attendance was unrestricted. No matter who could attend them or submit a literary work; everybody could take the floor dealing with literary, philosophical or scientific topics. The slogan of the association was: "Entre qui veut, reste qui peut". This slogan is a label for freedom and value. Only those who did not get bored and/or those who could face the unwavering arrows of the then-famous Junimea critical spirit would "remain". Junimea representatives were acknowledged as such not based on a written pledge but in view of their participation in the activities of the association. The "banquets" (annual festivals celebrating the setting up of Junimea association) were as informal, as vivid and as ludicrous as its meetings. Still, the guests were selected: only those who had regularly attended the weekly meetings were invited since only those had proved to be a member of Junimea. No reserved places. It ran in the tradition of the association that each participant should create a humourous work about another or other members of the association. No exception was allowed: even the mentor, Titu Maiorescu, who was called "the fools’ father". Somehow these banquets were for the association as the satire and carnival were for the Greeks and Romans as well as for the Western mediaeval world: a "world upside-down", where hierarchies were reversed and one could mock at everything. Actually, even ordinary meetings were contaminated by the virus of the carnival that had been a purifying and self-adjusting element for the association.

During the weekly meetings poetry, prose, literary critical works, dissertations were read. Especially the last three gave way to discussions on principles:

Since for prose we could not use the principle of the author said—the poet was not to explain his poems by "translating" them into prose —(our note): his opinions should be considered in the view of general principles. Maiorescu used to set forth—as he was reading one of his works— theories that called for counter-theories. Ardent debates of principles would follow, very instructive for the young participants, who were very interested in them, as Iacob Negruzzi,—one of the "pillars" of the association, remembers in his mémoires. (8)

Junimea counted among its members some authorities but always rational authorities (according to E. Fromm). (9) Among them, there were T. Maiorescu, the literary critic, and Vasile Alecsandri, the poet. Though respected, they were also criticized whenever necessary. The critics, when younger, had to be worthy members of the association. V. Alecsandri—a famous and respected poet of the time—benefited from this critical climate of Junimea. I. Slavici—talented prose writer and objective recaller of the association—mentions that Alecsandri’s poetry readings during Junimea meetings had been "decisive". The same can be said about Eminescu and Caragiale—who were to become the greatest Romanian poet and the greatest Romanian playwright respectively —when they started to attend the weekly meetings:

While reading, Alecsandri would occasionally stare at one of us, often at Eminescu, as if he was asking:" What do you think?".

"Well!", would say either Eminescu or Caragiale, "It is too good! It would be a shame not to brush a stroke here and there to make it just perfect!" (10)

Apart from the weekly meetings (debates of the works read by the authors and also debates about philosophical, esthetical, ethical, historic, ethnological, political economy, etc topics), Junimea also had a practical discourse manifested in: 1. public conferences to promote national and universal culture; 2. alternative handbooks and other books needed at school (e.g. Logica / Logics by T. Maiorescu) printed in their own printing house; 3. hard criticism of the orthography advanced by the Academy to be replaced by an alternative one to be later on validated by practice and finally approved by the Academy itself; 4. the need for an anthology of Romanian modern poetry to be selected on esthetic value; 5. Junimea welfare members sponsored the poor members to study abroad; 6. since 1867, the association published a monthly review of culture: "Convorbiri Literare" ("Literary Conversations"), soon to become the most important publication in the field of culture.

Junimea literary criticism is basically a polemical one (but respecting the rules of the polemic, i.e. debate, but not ad hominem attack). Moreover it is a tolerant spirit, that is understanding in diversity:

Junimea of Jassy was (...) a private association whose members loved sincerely the literature and the science. By sheer chance its first members had quite versatile knowledge according to their tastes so that they could complete one another and still understand one another. Still the most vivid debates—free from personal interests—drove them together and they became friends. Gradually their number increased and their diversty made them open to such abstract studies (...). This openness enabled that most diverse opinions came to life... (11)

 

Maiorescu goes on and exemplifies with pairs of opposite and still complementary personalities. Eminescu, in his turn, defines Jinimea as an orchestra where each instrument plays its tune, so different and yet part of the whole.

Diversity also implied different religious beliefs and races, and different social status of its members—some were rich landlords, others were employees of the state, some were just literate peasants as was the case of Ion Creanga who was a primary school teacher and a writer of genius.

Tolerance is based on non-superimposition of criteria: ‘national’ does not automatically means ‘valuable’. The guilt and the merit do not polarize in a Manichaean way into the dichotomy ‘we’ and ‘they’, the "new speak" of the totalitarian regimes (12). Junimea members had strong patriotic feelings and that is why among them we find fierce supporters of nationality (for instance the group named "Those Three Romanians" but also great writers as Eminescu and Creanga). Nevertheless there is also a non-Manichaean understanding in viewing the relations with national minorities. Stress should be laid on the fact that, in Parliament, the law for naturalization of foreigners, Jews in particular (quite numerous in Moldavia) is strongly supported by the leading members of Junimea such as P. P. Carp and T. Maiorescu. The latter makes subtle differences in the line of individual and collective rights and liberties as follows:

The great number of foreigners in our country, Jews in particular, is a symptom of a serious evil, and no one can deny this. But nothing is more ruthless than to attack the symptom and forget the evil! Our evil is economic under-development and the ignorance of the Romanian people.(...). The Jews have facilitated here the commercial activity, and the schools of France and Germany shared with us the idea of culture. We could do without these foreign ancillaries only when we ourselves could put in their place our own national fund.(...) Until then, to persecute the foreigners would mean to set free the barbarian spirit to fight against the intelligent one. (...) "Nationality"—in its worthy and valid meaning—cannot be a pretext for laziness and barbarism... (12)

For Junimea, the aim of any government would be "the progress of human civilization by means of tolerance and science". Intolerance is blamed whenever and wherever it arises. The stand taken by political representatives and Orthodox priests (versus Catholics) against tolerance was significant, and Maiorescu opposed their intolerance:

There were—writes Maiorescu in 1868—teachers in our public system and men of the so-called liberal party to become agents (promoters) of persecution, there were priests boasting in public assemblies their hatred against their neighbour who had other religious or political beliefs. Both had forgotten that science and liberty focus on humanitarian tolerance, they had forgotten that the Christian religion is based on unconditional love of everybody. (13)

 

Tolerance is moreover a premise for solidarity and subsidiarity. Here Junimea tradition focused on the major issues of post-modern society: confrontations between "outsiders" and "supporters", between "minority" and "majority", among various religious beliefs, among age groups, between sexes, etc. To learn the rules of tolerance by living according to Junimea’s experience may become an educational aim for the civil society in Romania today.

As above mentioned, Junimea’s critical spirit dissociates values and criteria of evaluation. This dissociation is significantly expressed by the syntagm "nationality (patriotism) within the limits of truth". Eminescu synthetized this principle in an article published in 1870 to defend the "cosmopolitan spirit" of Junimea against the attacks of "nationalists":

Something false does not become true just because it is national; something ‘unjust’ does not become ‘just’ because it is national; something ‘ugly’ does not become ‘beautiful’ because it is national; something ‘evil’ does not become ‘good’ because it is national (...) Our language, as objective as it is, would be beautiful and sweet for everybody (J. Scherr, Allg. Literaturgeschichte) The Law acknowledges well-known truths and therefore it is valid for everybody; finally, that objective, ‘good-side’ in ourselves would acknowledge it as such, and every good-willed individual would do the same. (14)

 

We can read here the major desideratum of great writers and theorists of Junimea: search for truth. Eminescu himself would write these verses: "Truth, this is my real calling", and would cry for the just word: "Where on earth could I discover the most truthful word of all?" Thus, between the individual and collective truth or between the national and universal one, there is no gap but compatibility and inclusion: unity within difference and multiplicity within unity.

The civil society of our times cannot be closed, lacking the dialogue with other countries and cultures, and far from exchanges based on compatible values and currencies. This idea can be traced back to "dissociation of values" promoted by Junimea. Moreover, we can acknowledge here a model of openness towards the values of other cultures and experimenting them during the developing Romanian democracy duriingt Junimea’s time (i.e. the second half of the 19th century). It is worth mentioning now one of the greatest and most complex Junimea personalities, Ioan Slavici (1848-1925) who spread the ideals of the association in Transylvania. In 1881 he founded in Sibiu a prestigious cultural magazine, "Tribuna" ("The Tribune"). This would be, beyond the mountains, for the Romanians who lived then within the borders of the Austro-Hungarian empire, the ‘front gate’ open for Junimea’s spirit. Slavici is an interesting and efficient example of a personality facilitating the influence/speading of a cultural doctrine on/into the public spirit. A writer by vocation, he also was interested in ethics and pedagogy, or rather he was born for ethics and pedagogy and a writer at the same time. To teach people how to live happily, this was his ideal. His literary works (short stories, novels, plays) would serve the same ultimate aim. In other words we could say that his aim was social pedagogy.

It is worth laying due stress on the fact that being a association of élite, Junimea’s audience belonged to the educated layer of the Romanian society. Its discourse was mainly to be held in an auditorium of a university or academiy. Many members of Junimea were professors. Thus, Slavici—as well as Ion Creanga, the folk story-teller of genius—would bring a complementary element since his audience—both as a writer and pedagogue—was a large one. That is why we may state that his activity lay within the frame of social pedagogy. However, we may say that he also vulgarized many of Junimea’s ideas.

When perusing Slavici’s pedagogical and literary works we are surprised to discover that they are based on Confucius. Confucius was a familiar topic at Junimea: for instance, Eminescu urged young Slavici to read this ancient Chinese philosopher. Soon, Slavici considered Confucius as "the wisest of all people who have ever lived on the earth". What are the communitarian values taken over from Confucius and spread by Slavici? First, total moderation and self-control, essential qualities in anything a man does. These values are closely related to the balance between the personal interests and the community ones. According to Slavici:

Confucius is brighter than Socrates [the latter claims that the laws and the customs should be seen to by the indivudual—our note] establishes the relation between ordinary debts [natural—our note] and the conventional ones [community—our note], stipulating the principle that everybody is to comply with laws and customs as appropriate, but should never take advantage of the concessions the same make in respect to individual faults. (15)

 

Moreover:

First and foremost, to be wise is to possess self-control. On the other hand, annihilation of one’s individuality would be painful and strange. Therefore, being wise means to keep the right balance, "neither too much nor less"; the wise keep the balance and do not wage battles either with the world or with themselves. Being aware of such right balance is the most serene satisfaction in life and who can reach it, is happy. (16)

 

Slavici stated and studied the aforesaid in a book of some hundred pages namely: Sfaturi pentru buna crestere a copiilor / Good Advice for Good Upbringing of Children, which was meant to spread ethics and pedagogy in most diverse social strata. Though the work of a scholar it is written in simple words. All his other works of the kind were its antipodes. Among the latter Educatia morala / Moral Education, whose chapters bear self-evident titles: "Personal Education" (Subchapters: ‘Ordinary Sentiments’, ‘Family-related Sentiments’, ‘Class-related Sentiments’, ‘National Sentiments’, ‘Body Spirit’, ‘Patriotism’, ‘Love for People’), ‘Charity’, `Impersonal Education’. As can be seen, the values are positioned on ever larger circumscribed circles, circumscribing the previous values. In another work, having a significant title: Fapta omeneasca. Scrisori catre un prieten tînar prieten / On Human Act. Letters to a Young Friend, we find the following paragraph highlighting the fact that at the basis of community values is love:

Confucius (...) says that all that suits the human nature is humanly good, and evil is all that is against human nature; and love for people is the basis of morality just because it is in the human nature, that one fails who loves only his own self and not the others. Needless to say that: all acts springing from true love for people, no matter how abusing the same may be for any or others, cannot be evil. (17)

 

It is interesting to note that Slavici advances the same desiderata of Junimea in his own way. Junimea advocated from the first days of its existence the disinterested act caused by love for the others. Junimea used a characteristic and specific syntagm: "impersonal enthusiasm". This syntagm precisely defines the altruist spirit of Junimea, open to the community: be it nation or humanity. "Impersonal enthusiasm" is posited by T. Maiorescu as the conditioning creativity in any field. We quote hereunder Maiorescu’s words before his students before leaving the University (his retirement was in 1910):

I believe that the only criterion of true vocation is the following: a warm interest for that part of the humanity you are to work for. No thought for your individual situation should guide you—since vanity or any other selfish wish may deceive you—but the thought to serve the others, for which benefit you have been named by the association. (18)

 

The same words he had addressed to his younger colleagues at Junimea when he urged them to forget their selfish interests:

Which is the reason, the foundation of our existence? The ideal sacrifice, nothing else. (...) To work for nothing and sometimes even to lose money, this is something meant to elevate your spirit and the people feel that. The loss is only in money but the gain is moral. The greatness of each of us is given by the sacrifices we made and are ready to make again. (19)

 

To go back to Slavici, we said that his fiction is nourished by the same background as his ethical and pedagogical works. Proof is given by his best short story claimed by all literary critics as being a masterpiece: Moara cu noroc / The Lucky Mill. Ironically, the title is a warning: there is not the money (fortune) but the understanding and harmony in the family and in the community that bring calm and happiness; exaggeration of individual interests (exclusively for material goods and for money in particular) results in inevitable and irreversible moral and spiritual decay and eventually in death itself. Even his best novel proves such an axiological underlayer although it carries a new message: the society cannot survive without the community values of subsidiarity.

The novel takes place in the Western part of Romania, in a multi-ethnical community (Romanians, Germans, Serbs, Czechs, etc.) and multi-confessional community (Orthodox, Catholic, Greek-Catholic, Reformed). It was for the first time in the Romanian literature that a great writer approached and studied such complex issues. The Romanian has been viewed from this sociological point as well. Slavici is praised for his thorough knowledge of this type of society as well as for his democratic "thesis" of inter-ethnic tolerance that is the core of the novel.

Put into right relationship, the issues related to integration of our traditional values into the modern values of the Western world do not differ too much from Junimea’s historical era. Education in Romania should become education for communication with the following principles:

1. Respect for our own values and openness towards universal values;

2. Encouraging a lucid and tolerant patriotism;

3. Encouraging love and altruism as basis of community values by means of practical discourse of intellectuals in general and of educators in particular;

4. Training for harmonizing the individual interests with the community ones through team projects;

5. Promoting the polemic spirit based on rational authority with the view to efficient communication in a team.

1. George F. McLean, Seminar on Civil Society and Social Reconstruction, Sept. 15-Nov. 10, 1995, Washington.

2. Françoise Thom, Limba de lemn, Bucuresti, Humanitas, 1993.

3. This French syntagm is used to designate a fixed phrase, a stereotyped formal language. We shall use in our paper the syntagm «new speak» from Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-four.

4. Junimea, a cultural association, was established by five young Romanian intellectuals who studied in the Western universities (in Germany and France). They had studied Law, most of them being doctors in Law. The leader of the group, Titu Maiorescu, had studied Law and Philosophy, and he was awarded with a doctorate in Germany. Upon return to Romania, he was appointed professor, and latter, the rector of the University in Jassy. Junimea grew bigger, adding new members: writers, historians, philosophers, etc. The prestige of this association was increased when Vasile Alecsandri, the most important Romanian writer till 1870, became a member of Junimea. We can speak not only of two decades of glory (1870-1890), but of more lasting influence exercised by this cultural association. The spirit of Junimea is, in fact, a permanent value of the Romanian culture.

5. T. Maiorescu (a monograph), T. Maiorescu si posteritatea lui critica, T. Maiorescu si contemporanii sai.

6. E. Lovinescu, T. Maiorescu, Bucuresti, Minerva, 1978, p. 625.

7. Marisa Zavalloni et Christiane Louis-Guerin, "La transdimensionalité des mots identitaires: exploration ego-écologiques", Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 2 (1968).

8. Jacob Negruzzi, Scrieri II, Bucuresti, Minerva, 1983, p. 168.

9. Erich Fromm, L’Homme pour lui-même, Paris, Editions Sociales Françaises, 1967.

10. Ioan Slavici, Opere IX, Bucuresti, Minerva, 1978, p. 89.

11. Titu Maiorescu, Opere II, Bucuresti, Minerva, 1984, p. 117. The article was written and published in 1890.

12. Titu Maiorescu, Opere I, Bucuresti, Minerva, 1978, p. 474

13. Ibid., p. 475.

14. M. Eminescu, Opere IX, Bucuresti, Editura Academiei Romane, 1980, p. 457.

15. Ioan Slavici, Opere XI, p. 252.

16. Ibid., p. 164.

17. Ioan Slavici, Opere IX, pp. 463-464.

18. Titu Maiorescu, Opere II, p. 555.

19. I. E. Torontiu, Studii si documete literare V, Bucuresti, Institutul "Bucovina", 1934, pp. 2-3.