The Looking Glass World of British
Intellectuals Timothy Garton Ash and
Tony Judt
Perceptions of the Central European
Intellectual, 1980- 2012
July, 2013
Karin de Jong,
5983282
Master Thesis European Studies: Identity and Integration
Thesis Supervisor: Dr. Guido Snel
Second Supervisor: Dr. Menno Spiering
University of Amsterdam
The Looking Glass World of British Intellectuals Timothy Garton Ash and Tony Judt
“How you see things depends on where you sit.”
Lech
Quoted in: Garton Ash, History of the Present, 1999, p. 33.
1
The Looking Glass World of British Intellectuals Timothy Garton Ash and Tony Judt
Table of Contents
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 3
Chapter One: ‘Central Europe’, Timothy Garton Ash and Tony Judt .............................. 8
1.1 Central European Discourse ............................................................................................. 8
1.2 The British Perspective on Central and Western Europe ............................................... 11
1.3 Timothy Garton Ash and Tony Judt ............................................................................... 12
1.4 The ‘Volta’ ..................................................................................................................... 14
Chapter Two: The Role of the Central European Intellectual .......................................... 18
2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 18
2.2 The Central European Intellectual Pre-1989 .................................................................. 19
2.2.1 The Central European Intellectual as narrated by Garton Ash and Judt .................. 19
2.2.2 The Relationship of the Central European Dissident Intellectuals with Britain and
Western Europe ................................................................................................................. 26
2.2.3 The Marginalia of Central European Intellectual Dissidence .................................. 28
2.3 The Central European Intellectual Post-1989 ................................................................. 29
2.3.1 Intellectual turned Politician .................................................................................... 29
2.3.2 The Politician-Intellectual Returns an Intellectual................................................... 33
Chapter Three: The British Intellectual in the Looking Glass .......................................... 35
3.1 The British and West European Intellectual ................................................................... 35
3.1.1 The British Intellectual ............................................................................................ 35
3.1.2 The West European Intellectual ............................................................................... 36
3.2 The Central European Intellectual: Garton Ash and Judt’s Prescription and Reckoning
.............................................................................................................................................. 37
3.2.1 Timothy Garton Ash ................................................................................................ 38
3.2.2 Tony Judt ................................................................................................................. 41
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 44
Bibliography ........................................................................................................................... 46
2
The Looking Glass World of British Intellectuals Timothy Garton Ash and Tony Judt
Introduction
A thesis is the work of a student who might potentially amount to what this thesis is centred
around: the intellectual. Albeit unlikely for every student to accomplish this, the two
thorough-bred, dyed-in-the-wool and convincing public intellectuals Tony Judt (1948-2010)
and Timothy Garton Ash (1955), started at this same platform. Now, they have published
books, essays and journalistic articles that have had a significant and pervasive impact in their
concerted field. This field concerns, namely, Central Europe and the role of the intellectual in
this region. Timothy Garton Ash covers this topic as he experiences it in front of him, thereby
he writes, as he refers to it, the ‘history of the present’. Tony Judt, on the other hand,
retrospectively analyses the events and the role of the intellectuals in Central Europe. These
perspectives are completely contrastive and together they present a circumspect vision of
Central Europe and its intellectuals. Firstly, they cover the last ten years before the fall of the
Berlin Wall in 1989. These years, the Central European intellectual spent underground.
Furthermore, the two authors encompass the decade following 1989 as well. This decade was
characterised by the build-up of democracy in Central Europe and by a European-wide debate
on the future of Europe. The thesis title states that it comprises the perceptions of Central
Europe from 1980 to 2012. However, the volume of the discourse dwindled after the
publication of Postwar (2005), Judt’s masterpiece. Nonetheless, the last years have been
included, because Tony Judt published two vitally important, reflective works in 2010 and
2012 that also cover Central Europe and its intellectuals. However, since they are based on
memory, contemporary developments have not been included.
During the early stages of the research the choice for these two authors was
increasingly justified because of their distinctive and outstanding voices on the matter. Garton
Ash and Judt’s uncompromising trenchancy breaks with the black-and-white view previously
busied by British and West European authors. Their contemporary British and West
Europeans argued that Central Europe belonged to Eastern Europe and should not be
considered for integration into Western Europe. The ‘Iron Curtain’ was the epitome of this
discourse. Garton Ash and Judt's unyielding approach to the matter by perseverance and
actually ‘sitting on the other side’ was a novelty in Britain and Western Europe. Their
significance in the debate around Central Europe was propelled forward by their dissociation
from other opinions on the region and while doing so by their turn towards the public. There
could not be more contrast to the pars pro toto trope here meaning that Judt and Garton Ash
3
The Looking Glass World of British Intellectuals Timothy Garton Ash and Tony Judt
were not sharing the contemporary intellectual consensus. Their words were of considerable
significance in acknowledging the region in Europe, which could not have been reached
solely by the Central European intellectuals. The Central European intelligentsia could not
penetrate the political divide of the ‘Iron Curtain’ since their voices were either lost in
translation or discovered the Western audiences to be lost in self-preoccupation. Yet, the
question remains, how did the discourse of Garton Ash and Judt amount to contributing to the
acceptance of Central Europe in Western Europe?
Judt and Garton Ash discuss the role of the intellectual in Central Europe from two
standpoints: the political and cultural side. Their consideration was whether there should be
an equilibrium of the two reconciled in the intellectual, or rather, preferably not? The Central
European intellectual is inevitably compared to the British and continental West European
intellectual. This discussion played against the backdrop of a European-wide quest for selfidentification and European integration through the deepening of the supranational and
intergovernmental enlargement in the 1980s and 1990s. As the Central European countries of
Poland, Czech Republic (formerly Czechoslovakia), and Hungary witness different stages
towards democracy and (inter) national recognition, the Central European intelligentsia is
inextricably linked to this process because of their exceptional position in Central European
society. They were intimately interconnected to the political apparatus pre-, and post 1989.
Pre-1989, the Central European intelligentsia waged an underground war against the
Communist regime. They were the "spiritual leaders" who kept the fire of national
consciousness flickering. After the fall of the Wall, some Central European intellectuals were
pushed into the corset of a political life. This reignited the debate whether the balance for the
intellectual should bend to the political side. This discussion of the role of the intellectual is
deepened by an unforeseen layer, namely that of Garton Ash and Judt’s preferences regarding
intellectual attributes. Their ideal intellectuals are a mix of the British, the continental West
European and the Central European styles. However, is their own intellectual contribution and
stature a prime example of adherence to their own prescriptions? If so, or if not, why did they
divert from their prescriptions. The looking glass is a metaphor for 'mirror', for a world in
which everything is reversed. This thesis is puts Garton Ash and Judt in a looking glass world
indeed, for their descriptions, opinions and prescriptions hold a mirror to their own roles.
4
The Looking Glass World of British Intellectuals Timothy Garton Ash and Tony Judt
This brings me to the pivotal question of this thesis:
How have British public intellectuals Tony Judt and Timothy Garton Ash portrayed the
Central European intellectual from the 1980s to post-2004?
In dealing with this question the following sub-questions are addressed:
Does their reflection on the Central European intelligentsia differ from their view of the
British, Central and continental West European intellectual?
What is their preferred mixture of intellectual attributes? Do Judt and Garton Ash adhere to
the British or their own classifications of the ideal role of the intelligentsia?
In which public sphere do they place their discourse?
The thesis will begin with a chapter centred on exploring the term Central Europe,
Tony Judt’s and Timothy Garton Ash’s lives and their relationship with the region. In order to
understand the historical contextual intricacies it is mandatory to unfold the sensitivities
towards other actors, such as other nations, politicians, and intellectuals in the region. Tony
Judt and Garton Ash will take up the ensuing sections of the chapter. In their discourse a
certain entanglement is noticeable between (auto) biography and intellectual commitment.
Moreover, the moment in their lives in which they directed their attention towards the Central
Europe and its frictions, albeit coincidentally or consciously, determines their tone towards
Central Europe. A remarkable feat from this analysis is the generational gap between the
‘baby-boomer’ Judt and young academic Garton Ash. Moreover, there is a clear distinction
between insider Garton Ash and outsider Judt in their discourse on Central Europe. Both
authors have commented on their turning moments retrospectively in their autobiographical
work. It appears that e.g. for Tony Judt, his Jewish heritage is a source of motivation to
explore Central Europe. The diversity of published work is vast since it ranges from speeches
to academic lectures, journalistic articles to widely recognized and renowned books all written
in English which furthered their impact upon a larger potential audience. This last point will
contribute to the ubiquitous dissemination and, primarily, to the considerable influence of
their work. This chapter will stipulate Judt and Garton Ash’s fascination for Central Europe
thereby fixing the dichotomy, which will be addressed, in the subsequent sections, namely the
British intellectual in contrast to the Central European intellectual in terms of political
influence.
Chapter two will focus on the role of the Central European intellectual. Their roles
always covered certain categories to an ever-alternating extent. These categories are, e.g.
5
The Looking Glass World of British Intellectuals Timothy Garton Ash and Tony Judt
nationalism, European integration, dissident movement, politics, and culture. Furthermore, the
Central European motivation for a cross European debate is investigated. This chapter will
dive deeper into questions such as: during which processes did Garton Ash and Judt’s
understanding of the Central European intellectual experience a metamorphosis? And when
and why did the Central European intellectual put on a new hat? An interesting example is
Garton Ash’s description of a meeting in which Czech Prime Minister Klaus and Czech
president Havel argued about the role of the intellectual in politics, which as Garton Ash
comments is highly ironic and amusing. They are slashing at each other's political
involvement, while they maintain decorum since they are supposed to be the country's
undivided leadership. Garton Ash gives a repeat performance of Havel's argument in his
discourse as he blatantly scathes Klaus for failure to participate in the underground dissident
intellectual movement.
Chapter three will hold the role of the Central European intellectual next to the part of
the British and continental West European intellectual, which differ as well. As Judt and
Garton Ash state the identities of the Central European intellectual, they question whether the
British intellectual’s (political) influence carries the same weight and if it even should carry
that weight. Their debate is linked to the quintessentially British, skeptic view of Europe, or,
‘the Continent’, which they do not altogether support or invalidate. Essentially, their discourse
also critiques their own experience as intellectuals, which is a fascinating point of comparison
for this thesis. For although, they may preach a tipping of the proverbial scale to the cultural
side their actions might not reflect this sagacious advice.
The conclusion will make a final comparison between the various roles of the
intellectual. Moreover, this will aid in shedding light on the process of European integration
and the emergence of new identities; for the intellectuals, for the newly-free democratic states,
for Europe, and for Britain’s role in a newly-emergent Europe.
As Merje Kuus stated it ‘very few social scientists have endeavoured to trace Western
(re)invention of Eastern Europe’ (2004, p. 475). There are, therefore, no (complete)
exemplary studies. Others have ventured the studying of Central Europe itself, which has
resulted in the wonderfully circumspect collection of essays edited by Christopher Lord
Central Europe: Core or Periphery? In this collection the works of Maria Todorova and Iver
Neumann are of main concern for this thesis since Todorova is sceptical of Central Europe’s
existence and Neumann reflects on the role of term Central Europe. Of course, the cultural
and historical, as well as the political spectrum have been highlighted, however, never entirely
from the point of view of the intellectual. András Bozóki's research into the Hungarian
6
The Looking Glass World of British Intellectuals Timothy Garton Ash and Tony Judt
dissident intellectual around 1989 was, although narrow, helpful in its description of the
intellectual. However, this work underlined the necessity of contextual history and placement
in particular public spheres. This thesis, with its special attention for the British perspective
will highlight new aspects of the British view of Central Europe.
7
The Looking Glass World of British Intellectuals Timothy Garton Ash and Tony Judt
Chapter One: ‘Central Europe’, Timothy Garton Ash and Tony
Judt
1.1 Central European Discourse
‘Central Europe’ is a cultural, historical, and political concept that can rightly be
characterised as notorious, contested, and complex. Iver Neumann, in his efforts to define and
delineate the term referred to it as “spoken into existence” (2000, p. 207) and Ukrainian
novelist Yuri Andrukhovich noted that its nature resembled that of “a phantom” (2004, p. 43).
The formulation of such a definition is challenging, for it implies multiple geographical,
temporal, economic, political, and cultural interpretations, which date back to the onset of the
twentieth century, or even further. It is, however, necessary to acknowledge and comprehend
previous formats in the discourse in order to fathom the ‘phantom’ of the new discourse,
which this thesis concerns. The resurfacing of the notion in the 1980s meant the start of a
revivified discourse, which would extend to audiences in Western Europe as well as in the
region itself. Moreover, it would find resonance in other margins of (EC/EU) Europe, such as
Great Britain, the state that does not include itself under the title ‘Western Europe’.
The first concept that equates ‘Central Europe’ is ‘Mitteleuropa’. This term was rooted
firmly in the Germanic mind-set of the First World War. Friedrich Neumann’s work
Mitteleuropa (1915) focussed mainly on Germany as the socio-economic centre of a region,
which would include the German lands, in addition to the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy and
all the lands that were not in an alliance with the Russians or France and Great Britain
(Cornis-Pope, 2004, p.2). A liberal economist at heart, Naumann thought that the First World
War was signalling a need for an increase in scale economically. Secondly, the Reichstag
member cherished a political incentive for the union. Namely, the vocal point of his work
would be the union of the Germanic and the non-Germanic peoples of Mitteleuropa.
However, in this union, Germany would be the pivotal and dominating power. This appears,
in retrospect, rather naïve in actual realisation. The lifelong struggles of, as British historian
Hugh Seton-Watson once phrased it in the title of his book, the ‘Sick Heart of Europe’ (1975)
did not find their solution in a large alliance as proposed by Naumann. Rather the lands
disbanded, culminating in a triggering instrument for both World Wars in the twentieth
century. Naumann’s pan-Germanic philosophies emanated, according to Cornis-Pope and
Neubauer, “little thought of self-determination” (2004, p. 3). Therefore, the Slavic population
of Austria-Hungary interpreted Naumann’s work as an object of hatred and utter
8
The Looking Glass World of British Intellectuals Timothy Garton Ash and Tony Judt
disappointment, reasoning that it resembled a variant of Drang nach Osten. In addition, other
European states were not keen to see a larger German unit arising in the centre of Europe. As
such, the first use of the concept was significant for it fostered the fear of German domination.
Although, it was relatively short-lived, it retained a devastating, though brief, revival in the
preamble to and during the Second World War – and mostly increased anti-German sentiment
in other European states.
After the First World War, the Central European lands found themselves in a new
European order which meant geographical enlargement, however, also political reduction to
Zwischen-Europa, which encompassed all lands between Germany and Russia. This is a
radically different Central European discourse than the previously discussed ‘Mitteleuropa’.
After the Cold war, the use of ‘Zwischen-Europa’ flared up and reasserted its meaning as “an
area of weak undemocratic states, riven by social and national conflicts” (Garton Ash, 1999,
p. 66). It is apparent from this definition by Timothy Garton Ash that the term had acquired a
negative connotation which resulted in its petering out since it saw the light of day in the
interwar period. The grounds for this dwindling utilisation can mainly be found in the political
motives of its users.
These aforementioned users are the Central European writers from the 1980s onwards
who found themselves fenced in, quite literally, in the rigid bipolar world of the Cold War.
The context of two competing victorious superpowers, the United States and the Soviet
Union, geographically translated to a division of Europe into Western and Eastern Europe by
the ‘Iron Curtain’. Thereupon, Central European writers formulated a new Central European
discourse. This time, indeed, termed ‘Central Europe’, for “the term Central Europe was a
reminder that other ways of mapping the world did exist. (…) It acted as a countermove to
these stories of the politically constituted selves of socialism and capitalism” (Neumann,
2000, p. 209). The term now geographically encapsulated the lands between Russia and
Western Europe, although some countries were more actively involved than others in setting
themselves apart from the clear-cut, black-and-white divide of Western versus Eastern
Europe.
This self-manifestation fits in perfectly as a symptom in the general movement of
European self-assertion (or ‘euro-nationalism’) during the last decade of the Cold War
through the goals of economic integration, which consequently lead to “a stronger sense of
solidarity among Europeans” (Neuman, 2001, p. 319). Under the leadership of Jacques
Delors, Europe – it is necessary to point out here that this is the Europe of the European
Community, Western Europe - strove for extraction from this Cold War dichotomy by means
9
The Looking Glass World of British Intellectuals Timothy Garton Ash and Tony Judt
of striving towards ‘EUrope’. György Konrád, a Hungarian novelist, mainly recognises that
“until recently we did not have partners in Western European countries” (Konrád, 1985, p.
457). Europe was gaining self-confidence. This was favourable for the Eastern states,
because, as Konrád argued, “West Europeans can help us by strengthening their sense of
European identity and by reviving the notion that Europe is the agent of its own destiny, with
a strategy and political profile of its own” (Konrád, 1985, p. 458). He saw the chance for
Little Europe, i.e. the economically integrated Western states, to act as a catalyst for more
reform for the rest of Europe.
Besides the political expression, there was a cultural manifestation, which
demonstrated a Central European cultural identity. The most prominent and well-known
example (to West European audiences) is Milan Kundera’s plea to Western Europe “The
Tragedy of Central Europe” or “Le Occident Kidnappe” (translation: “The Kidnapped West”)
(1984). Kundera attempted to hook on the eyes of Western Europe and focus them beyond the
Iron Curtain, for in the eyes of the West “the Eastern bloc had completely disappeared from
sight altogether” (Judt, 1990b, p.14). Kundera does so by demarcating the Western negligence
of Central Europe’s cultural importance (Snel, 2012, p.235) and, particularly, the omission of
West European links and ties into Central European culture. “It is a great cultural centre, (…)
characterised by the predominance of the irrational and the dominant position of the visual
arts and especially of music” (Kundera, 1984, p. 6). He cleverly advances his argument by
stating that the Soviet suppression has extinguished the cultural unity of Central and Western
Europe. However, the “real tragedy” (Kundera, 1984, p. 14) is the loss in Western Europe of
culture as a European value. With this novel approach of cultural discussion Kundera blurs
the lines of argument. Covertly he has political ends, however, overtly he pushes the cultural
discussion. Therefore, it is of secondary significance when his argument was put to the sword
for lack of validity on the cultural basis.
In concurrence with Kundera, the Central European discourse gradually grew more
prolific, for which it, arguably, mainly, and truly remarkably, had the Central European
Intelligentsia to thank. There was a very lively underground culture, even though there were
deadly consequences to participating in the underground. Moreover, the underground had to
compete against the Soviets, who attempted to impose their own language on Central
European society. Poets, essayists, playwrights, and historians alike formed the backbone of
an apparatus that produced an estimated amount of up to sixteen hundred (Garton Ash, 1989,
p. 97) periodicals, weeklies, and journals (in Poland). Lithuanian / Polish poet Czes aw
Mi osz published a collection of poetry The Witness of Poetry, and Kundera, the novelist,
10
The Looking Glass World of British Intellectuals Timothy Garton Ash and Tony Judt
published “The Tragedy of Central Europe”. Although, they produced a variety of text-sorts,
the ‘inteligencja’ (Garton Ash, 1989, p. 95) published works that reached audiences further
and wider than their national scope, especially in retrospect.
This reach of the published materials initially remained quite limited, for, though the
discourse circulated around fellow intellectual’s circles, it was not reaching the Western
general audiences. Problematic constraints such as language (texts were written in the mother
tongue for lack of a lingua franca (Snel, 2012, p. 239)), style and topic boundaries proved
mostly too tough to overcome for the Western public. Nonetheless, Kundera’s voice could
herald the Central European identity and Western negligence, which was a novelty in most of
Western Europe that had forgot its European margins. It is remarkable that two British
authors, namely Tony Judt and Timothy Garton Ash, living in a European margin, as Britain
likes to see itself, largely formulated Europe’s (i.e. Western Europe’s) understanding of
Central Europe.
1.2 The British Perspective on Central and Western Europe
The British perspective of Central Europe was substantially related to and determined
by the British perspective of Europe, and in particular, its stance towards the European
Community. This is odd, concerning that Central Europe (the Eastern part of it), was not in
this European Community. However, the 1980s signified a period of reinvigoration and
deepening for the European Community. The potential for the Community to take a new
direction influenced politics immensely. This was especially the case after the fall of the Wall
in 1989. Since the British desired plan was the polar opposite of deepening, especially since
the election of conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, the government stimulated the
enlargement of the Community. In these years, the British media coined the term
‘Euroscepticism’ (“Euroscepticism”, OED Online; Spiering, 2004, p. 132). This concept ran
counter to the ‘Eurohappiness’ that had started to re-enter the arena on the continent. As
Douglas Hurd, British Home Secretary (1985-1989) and Foreign Secretary (1989–1995), in
concurrence with Thatcher’s view, stated: the Cold War system and European divide is a
“system under which we’ve lived quite happily for forty years” (Judt, 2005, p. 639).
The pivotal moment in British-Central European relations is the fall of the Berlin Wall
in 1989 and the nearly immediate re-unification of East and West Germany. The British
Eurosceptic attitude certainly did not alter or falter when the Wall was torn down, or when the
Iron Curtain fell. If anything, this surprising situation provided the British with a solution for
their EC problems, such as relinquishing sovereignty, authority and capital to ‘Europe’. The
11
The Looking Glass World of British Intellectuals Timothy Garton Ash and Tony Judt
sudden realisation that the ex-Communist Eastern Bloc had now turned into a number of
potentially democratic and autonomous states posed problems for the continental European
Community states. What to do with these new states? This new situation essentially led to a
debate in Europe of deepening versus widening in Europe. Britain seized its opportunity here
to opt for rapid and extensive widening. Widening, or the enlargement of the European
Community, would allow the British to decelerate the pace of deeper integration. Thereby,
they would indulge the wish of the public as well – “Up Yours, Delors!” (The Sun, 1990, p. 1)
by killing two birds with one stone. This abrupt ending meant a shift to supporting Central
Europe in its aims of Westernisation, joining NATO and EU. This attitude and debate is
reflected in the work of intellectuals Judt and Garton Ash, who do not unanimously agree
with the British government’s conduct and stance.
1.3 Timothy Garton Ash and Tony Judt
Timothy Garton Ash (1955) and Tony Judt (1948-2010) are two British intellectuals,
who were important in the changing attitude of Britain and Europe towards Central Europe by
raising consciousness of its existence in extremely nuanced detail, thereby steering clear of
the stigma’s and dogma’s that had been branded onto Central Europe by others. The fruits of
their labour are very different in style, reference and overall character. They are bound by
their mutual intense interest in Central Europe and their central role in Central European
public debate.
Tony Judt’s last books, Postwar (2005), The Memory Chalet (2010) and Thinking the
Twentieth Century (2012), are indicative of his analytic and reflective capacities of the past.
Educated at ‘Oxbridge’, as Judt affectionately refers to it, he spring boarded his starting
careers into a celebrated teaching and prolific writing careers. Judt’s heritage is quite
different, e.g. it is much more ethnically diverse, from Garton Ash’s background, which is
evident in his writing. Judt wrote from his extensive knowledge and other’s experience which
he gathered during his studies and whilst speaking to Central European dissidents in Western
Europe and the United States. His view is, therefore, rather distant, not only in tone of voice,
but also as regards the timing of his major publications. Namely, his most influential works
Postwar (2005), The Memory Chalet (2010) and Thinking the Twentieth Century (2012) date
amply after their content occurred.
In this regard, Garton Ash opted for the more exciting path, which results in eventful,
innovative writing. By actually travelling beyond the Curtain (and later on the Eastern EC/EU
border) to attend scholarly meetings, dissident lectures, and interviewing presidents and even
12
The Looking Glass World of British Intellectuals Timothy Garton Ash and Tony Judt
gathering his own Stasi history. His work was highly contemporary, which is a primary cause
for its influential presence.
The interplay between journalism and academe or historic writing added their impact
on the British and West European reader, and it made them ‘public intellectuals’, although
this mixture manifested itself in highly varying ways.
The mixture in Judt’s work began to shine through only when his own life began to
end, and his hankering to contribute to a future, which he could not live to see, increased. In
2008, Judt was diagnosed with ALS, a motor neuron disease, which would eliminate the use
of his limbs, one by one. Jennifer Homans, Judt’s late wife, reports that as Judt’s illness
worsened, “the more public he became” (Homans, 2012, p. 1). He loosened his academic
writing style and topics and published one completely autobiographical work The Memory
Chalet, and one semi-autobiographical work, with Timothy Snyder, whom Garton Ash had
supervised as a PhD-student, Thinking the Twentieth Century. These works were dedicated to
his sons and wife, for he had so much to say to them, however, now even the use of his voice
was restricted. However, these last two works were also meant to a broader public that could
benefit from his knowledge. They were not historic works, but works of memory. His sense of
what an intellectual was had always been determined by his life as an outsider, as a Jew in
Britain (Judt, 2010, p. 86), as a British person in Israel (Judt, 2010, p. 95), and as a British
intellectual in America (Judt & Snyder, 2012, p. 294). By then he was more than ever privy to
his own thoughts. However, he also reached out more than ever by participating in public
debate. Although, in his mind, this did not make him a ‘public intellectual’, this thesis argues
that it did. “He disliked the term, which seemed to him evidence of the failure of scholars to
build links between the academy and public life” (Homans, 2012, p. 1). Timothy Garton Ash
supported these last ‘excursions’ towards the public eye, and is duly thanked by his good
friend Tony Judt in the foreword of both books. Last, the mixture between academia and
journalism is represented in Judt’s turn towards Central European discourse.
Garton Ash, on the other hand, had switched to a wonderful mixture of journalistic
sharpness and academic reflection quite early onwards. His essays on Central European issues
in the 1980s and his personal books, such as The File illustrate this. His unique view, of
‘sitting on the other side’ caught the attention of editors. Duly, The Guardian published a
weekly column by Garton Ash. It was his true entrance into the world of journalism.
Occasionally his works were republished in American newspapers, like The New York
Review, and Daedalus. In the meantime, Garton Ash kept his office as Professor of European
Studies at Oxford, in which capacity he was invited to travel around the continent to give
13
The Looking Glass World of British Intellectuals Timothy Garton Ash and Tony Judt
public lectures. Garton Ash, in contrast to Tony Judt, was the insider to Central Europe, who
was not afraid to speak out and be the public intellectual.
Thus, a continuously returning theme in Garton Ash and Judt’s work is the role of the
intellectual in Central European national and trans-national society. Their local intellectual
circles generated their initial interest, their international intellectual connections kept the
attention. The intellectual was their gateway into understanding Central Europe, and as such,
it is the reader’s gateway into Central Europe, for Judt and Garton Ash, as intellectuals, were
messengers of Central Europe to Britain and Western Europe. Both authors place intellectual
contribution on a balance with the following poles: culture and politics. In the dissident
movement, the build-up towards democracy, the upkeep with national heritage, language etc.,
their own topic of intellectual interest, in sum, a whole range of different duties and interests
busied the Central European intellectual. Judt and Garton Ash, indeed, discuss both politics
and culture as opposite sides of the spectrum, concluding that there is a rapid and radical shift
in the tipping of the equilibrium over the course of time (1980s – post 2004). It is, of course,
inherently inevitable that Judt and Garton Ash comment on their own role and work as well.
In discussing and assessing the Central European intellectual, essentially, they also classify,
critique and comment on themselves on their own role as intellectual in a Western society.
1.4 The ‘Volta’
“ ‘Volta’, (Italian: ‘turn’) the turn in thought in a sonnet that is often indicated by such
initial words as But, Yet, or And yet.”
From: Luebering, 2007, n.p.
Tony Judt and Timothy Garton Ash’s interest in Central Europe developed, as
mentioned in the above, through their intellectual curiosity and research, and meetings with
intellectual exiles from Central Europe. However, this occurred in quite varying ways that are
indicative of their further manner of research and discourse.
Timothy Garton Ash’s interest for Central Europe was raised through his academic
pursuit, and by the push of his publisher. As Garton Ash reports in the foreword of his Uses of
Adversity (1989), it was his publisher, Alexander Chancellor from London-based The
Spectator, who gave him the opportunity of going behind the Iron Curtain in 1979. “I thought
14
The Looking Glass World of British Intellectuals Timothy Garton Ash and Tony Judt
you might like to go to Eastern Europe” (Garton Ash, 1989, p. viii), were his convincing
words. Garton Ash was not given any restrictions concerning topic or country, therefore, he
could write elaborately and at his own discretion. In his own comments Garton Ash notes this
as indicative for the laissez faire attitude of English publishing, versus “New York
interventionism” (Garton Ash, 1989, p. viii). During the 1980s, he continued to travel beyond
the curtain, in search of new material for essays, which were published not only by The
Spectator, but also by The New York Review of Books, and were later bundled in The Uses of
Adversity (1989). The Uses of Adversity was a game-changing and highly influential
collection of essays, for it spoke to Western audiences about a Europe east of the curtain,
which they had not known before.
Furthermore, he continued his post-graduate research in both East and West Berlin,
after graduating from Oxford University in Modern History. His studies in Oxford are
deceptive, for they appear to cover the Central European history as well. Although, this might
have been encompassed as well, Garton Ash’s initial interest comprises ordinary life’s
diabolic dilemmas during the Nazi regime in Germany. During his research, he discovers that
his eastern contemporaries are on the horns of a dilemma forced on them by the Communist
totalitarian regime as well (Pasture, 2011, p.2). Their stories hold him in their grip prompting
him to extensive travelling and writing resulted in the publishing of The Polish Revolution:
Solidarity (1983); The Uses of Adversity (1989); We the People: The Revolution of ’89
Witnessed in Warsaw, Budapest, Berlin & Prague (1990); In Europe’s Name: Germany and
the Divided Continent (1993); The File: A Personal History (1997) , and lastly, History of the
Present (1999). Garton Ash’s volta was noticeable, though barely, since it was at the start of
his academic career that these interests for Central Europe arose. Although, it is evident that
his publishers commended him for his earlier work if they would send him of to the East to
investigate whatever suited him best. Thus, it was a concert of academe and journalism, which
was the trigger to Garton Ash’s volta.
Tony Judt’s interest, on the other hand, was candled through multiple channels. His
attention was first caught by a Polish exile, a colleague of his at Emory University in the
United States. Before meeting this new acquaintance Judt did not publish on Central Europe,
although he did have a background in European history, for his father did “pass on his own
passion for European history” (Homans, 2012, n.p.). His focus was on a well-known niche of
European ideas: French intellectuals and left-wing politics. Not only was the theme well
known, Judt had earned quite a reputation and respect for his academic work. This enabled
him to travel abroad to the United States and taking the tenure ship as visiting professor of
15
The Looking Glass World of British Intellectuals Timothy Garton Ash and Tony Judt
political sociology at Emory in Atlanta. It was there in 1981 that his Polish colleague Jan
Gross introduced Tony Judt to a new world of intellectual research. “Thanks in large measure
to Jan and Irena, Eastern Europe and East Europeans began to offer me an alternative social
life which in turn – and very appropriately for the region – became a renewed and redirected
intellectual existence” (Judt & Snyder, 2012, p. 201). His Polish friends in exile thus candled
a light in Judt that had been dimmed before. During their conversations about his interest in
European history and his own history and memory, they stumbled upon a subject of collective
memory: the events of 1968. Whilst Judt had “travelled widely in his half of the continent”
(Judt, 2010, p. 124), yet he had been unaware of the ‘real’ struggles of 1968 which his eastern
contemporaries had to endure. His comments on the matter, in The Memory Chalet and
Thinking the Twentieth Century, recognise this as a failure on his side: “I might have felt a
little less superior, had I known what was going on some 250 miles to the East” (Judt, 2010,
p. 124). The reintroduction to that period exuded for Judt an increasing awareness of a
“spiritual bond that bound our generation together across the political divide” (Judt & Snyder,
2012, p. 203). This generational issue will continue to be a theme running through his work
and as a matter of divergence from Timothy Garton Ash’s point of view in this thesis. The
engine started running, the catalyst had done its work.
Now that Judt was in for a penny, he was in for a pound. This meant further
submersion into the world of Eastern Europe, its history and its people. He was introduced to
Czech dissidents, who inspired him to teach himself Czech – which he considered relatively
easier to learn than Polish would be. From 1986-1987 Judt outdid himself by travelling to
Czechoslovakia to smuggle books and give secret lectures in English (Judt, 2010, p. 169). It
was a reinvigorating process, which was followed by his lectures on East European history.
Having briefly stepped out of his comfort zone, also known as the ivory tower of academia,
Judt safely returned and began extending his knowledge.
Only when Judt was requested so, did he indeed write about Eastern Europe (which, in
his discourse includes Central Europe, for it lay East of the curtain). Daniel Chirot, a
Romanian scholar at the University of Washington, asked him to write his first paper on
‘Dilemmas of Dissidence’, for a symposium in 1987. The influence of the American academic
network community and its interventionist publishing houses and journals catapulted Judt into
writing more prolifically on Central Europe, and aided in his turn towards “political writing
and serious journalism” (Judt & Snyder, 2012, p. 251). This American academic network
harboured many intellectuals from Eastern Europe, which is why it was so involved in the
Central European question. Judt’s work on French intellectualism and left-wing politics
16
The Looking Glass World of British Intellectuals Timothy Garton Ash and Tony Judt
cleared the way to a secure tenure, which, in its turn, paved the path to publishing in
renowned journals such as The New York Review of Books, The New York Times Book
Review, The Washington Post, The New Yorker. “Silvers [editor of The New York Review of
Books] offered me the occasion to write about things that I would have thought beyond me”
(Judt & Snyder, 2012, p. 284). The support of those people to discover unknown realms of
writing pushed Judt and it lead to his greatly acclaimed and celebrated Postwar (2005).
Lastly, there was for Tony Judt, another aspect that fuelled his interest in Eastern
Europe, namely, his Jewish heritage. Named after his father’s cousin Toni, who passed away
in Auschwitz, returning to Eastern Europe was, strangely, a way of returning “home” for Judt
(Judt & Snyder, 2012, p. 205). In The Memory Chalet and Thinking the Twentieth Century he
recounts that his “minority ethnicity” (Judt, 2010, p. 86), still plagued him in his youth. In
primary school his peers and teachers would bully him; it acted as a perceived, though a
respected, prison for him. As an adolescent, Judt temporarily moves to Israel for Kibbutz.
There, the perceived prison that others ‘locked him into’, swiftly became an actual prison for
him. “Even now, I can recall my surprise at how little my fellow kibbutzniks knew or cared
about the wider world” (Judt, 2010, p. 95). This caused him to be sceptical about ideology.
The argument made in the above about the 1968 revolutions everywhere in Europe, propelled
to the foreground even more shame for, his ancestry had lived through it on the other side, and
he had been utterly ignorant.
17
The Looking Glass World of British Intellectuals Timothy Garton Ash and Tony Judt
Chapter Two: The Role of the Central European Intellectual
2.1 Introduction
In their description of Central Europe, authors Judt and Garton Ash’s depiction of the
journey of the intellectual is the eye-catcher between the historical events. The transformative
journey is brought to life by analytic reflection and the voltage of eyewitness accounts.
Roughly speaking, the authors’ work covers the years from 1980 up until 2010, thereby
covering the years prior to the fall of Communism as well as the post-EU-accession period.
On the one hand, Tony Judt’s comments on the Central European intellectual
published in 1990 (“Rediscovery of Central Europe” (1990a), “Czech Identity” (1990b)) attest
to a discourse headed towards a closer reading of the region. In particular, he discusses the
Central European relationship to the West as cultivated by Milan Kundera. On the other hand,
in Judt’s reflective, personal and didactic works (The Memory Chalet; Thinking the Twentieth
Century), the intellectual is tightly tucked in between a wealth of historic context opening up
a broader view to the reader of the intellectual’s purpose in society. Garton Ash’s account of
the pre-1989 era is even more narrowed than Judt’s earlier work. He uncovers a more
specified and, predominantly, a direct treatment of secret conferences, public demonstrations
and intra-regional contacts which he witnessed. The discussion of these topics, in which Judt
and Garton Ash do not quite see eye to eye, leads to juggling of both the cultural (overtly) and
the political (covertly) raisons d’être of the intellectual in Communist society.
Post-1989, the cultural intellectual with underground politics morphs into an
intellectual who practices politics in the broad daylight, and eventually, into an intellectual
who limits his political activity. Václav Havel is the case study here to indicate the turn from
intellectual to politician and back again. Garton Ash illustrates the development of the
intellectual’s role sublimely in his discussion of the debate between Václav Havel (president
Czech Republic) and Václav Klaus (Prime Minister Czech Republic). This contingency made
Garton Ash conscious of the fact that the Central European intellectual holds a political role
as well. Generally, Garton Ash keeps highlighting Havel’s accomplishments. He has forgotten
his critical attributes as if the light that is Havel blinded him. Tony Judt adopts a retrospective
and analytical voice, full of sarcasm and irony, which criticises the adoration of Václav Havel.
Thereby, he is not only going against Garton Ash, but also against the bulk of the West
Europeans who idolise Havel.
18
The Looking Glass World of British Intellectuals Timothy Garton Ash and Tony Judt
2.2 The Central European Intellectual Pre-1989
“Czechoslovakia today can be compared to a lake permanently covered by a thick layer
of ice. On the surface nothing moves. But under the ice, among the philosopherlabourers, the window-cleaning journalists, and night-watchman-monks, things are on
the move.”
Timothy Garton Ash, 1989, p. 57.
2.2.1 The Central European Intellectual as narrated by Garton Ash and Judt
In his quote in the above, Timothy Garton Ash highlights four themes, namely, that of
Communist suppression which leads to the casting away of the dissenting intellectual and his
peers to the lowest sports of the social ladder. Secondly, he addresses the dissidents’ attitude
of ‘we pretend to abide, and you pretend that we are abiding the Communist law’. Thirdly, he
points out that the underground culture is alive and is slowly melting the ice from underneath.
Last, and by no means least the quote is limited to Czechoslovakia, which indicates a different
approximation to the intellectual in e.g. Poland and Hungary.
The Communist regime in the 1980s “destroyed civil society in Eastern Europe”
(Garton Ash, 1999, p. 30) which relegated the novelist, historian, essayist or playwright to
society’s dumps. Despite Garton Ash’s recognition of the danger, his voice is full of hope for
these dissenting intellectuals. As pointed out in the quote above, the intellectual is stifled in
practicing his true or temporary profession and in expressing his discontent about the
government. Despite the frequent persecution and the ‘judges’’ trigger fingers to sentence
intellectuals to house arrest, gaol, or banish them in order to restrain them, regardless the
intellectuals would chase their goals of increased freedom and eventual independence. Civil
society, traditionally the government’s sounding board, was thus destroyed and there was no
satisfying replacement. The new elite consisted of ambitious Communists referred to by
Garton Ash as “the worst, stupidest, and most servile” (Garton Ash, 1989, p. 57). It is an
upside-down world in which “the most independent, intelligent, and best are at the bottom”
(Garton Ash, 1989, p. 57).
Garton Ash was full of respect and awe for the courage of the intellectual to utilise the
elbowroom that had been created by the off the record style of Communist law. These laws
were “rather more like the informal terms of ‘we pretend to conform, and you pretend to
believe us’” (Judt, 2010, p.105). Despite the continued coercion, which should not be
19
The Looking Glass World of British Intellectuals Timothy Garton Ash and Tony Judt
underestimated, this elbowroom became the dissidents’ homestead, which Garton Ash visited
regularly. Of course, the shade of Communist brook or overlooking was not singularly
responsible for gathering support for dissidence. Certainly the dissident’s fearless attitude of
“having nothing to lose” (Havel quoted in Winn, 1987, p.3) encouraged the dissident
movement. Garton Ash’s astonishment at a secret symposium in Budapest in which István
Eorsi exclaimed, “give us censorship!” is exemplary (1989, p. 130). This British intellectual
supports, sympathises and understands the dissenting intellectual. However, they could still
surprise him. In Hungary, the moderate Communists regime was compared to a labyrinth in
which it was “not clear where the hedges are” (Garton Ash, 1989, p. 130). This gave the
intellectuals their elbowroom. However, it also provided the regime permission for its
capricious nature. Thus, although it was not always an entirely benign development, in the
1980s, the tide had begun to change for people living under the reign of the Soviet Bloc
Communist regime.
In 1977, the undercurrents of society started to seep through to the surface prompted by
a sense of truthfulness, as Czech dissident Václav Havel describes in his influential essay
“Power of the Powerless” (1978, p. 155).
Moreover, when the trial took place [the state versus unconventional musicians raging
against the Communist regime], a new mood had begun to surface after the years of waiting, of
apathy and of scepticism toward various forms of resistance. People were "tired of being tired"; they
were fed up with the stagnation, the inactivity, barely hanging on in the hope that things might
improve after all. In some ways the trial was the final straw. Many groups of differing tendencies
which until then had remained isolated from each other, reluctant to cooperate, or which were
committed to forms of action that made cooperation difficult, were suddenly struck with the
powerful realization that freedom is indivisible. Everyone understood that an attack on the Czech
musical underground was an attack on a most elementary and important thing, something that in fact
bound everyone together: it was an attack on the very notion of living within the truth, on the real
aims of life.
As Havel expounds in this text, it was this attack on what it meant to be free in its
purest essence, namely to have the human freedom to be able to play rock music, which
spurred the sudden rise in support for dissent. This support was based on the principle of
solidarity because the band’s liberty to exercise their lifestyle was extended in the minds of
the people to include the elemental liberties of writing without set boundaries or to be free to
be politically engaged in society. Havel here, crucially, links two concepts, to wit, culture
20
The Looking Glass World of British Intellectuals Timothy Garton Ash and Tony Judt
(Czech rock music) and suppression by law, in an essay which circulated widely through
Central Europe.
This intellectual conclusive support for cultural defiance of the system drums up a
critical paradox in the existence of the intellectual dissidents. On the one hand, the intellectual
is bound to the bottom of society, unable to practice his profession. On the other hand, this
same intellectual developed into the role as the “moral and spiritual leader” of the nation
(Garton Ash, 1989, p. 153). The primary examples of this hypothesis were Václav Havel
(who was in ‘inner exile’) for the Czechoslovakia and Czes aw
(who was in exile in
the United States) for Lithuania and
stated “the Polish intelligentsia had always served Poland above all” (Geremek quoted in
Garton Ash, 1989, p. 80). Garton Ash characterises the Central European dissident intellectual
as ‘yeomen warders of the nation’s crown jewels’, i.e. “the conscience of the nation” (Garton
Ash, 1999, p. 158).
His interpretation of this vague concept, i.e. the ‘conscience of the nation’, is that the
intellectual preserves the nation’s history, its language, and its words. In other words, the
intellectual proceeded to ensure that the cultural heritage and new additions to national culture
were preserved during the Communist reign. Milan Kundera argues in line with this
interconnection stating that “the struggle of man against power is the struggle of man against
forgetting” (Kundera quoted in Garton Ash, 1989, p.60). Timothy Garton Ash is the one
Western intellectual who recorded the position of the Central European intellectual while
actually ‘sitting on the other side’ as a paradox. In his work The Uses of Adversity (1989), he
clearly describes the differing functions of the intellectual as warder of the cultural treasures.
Firstly, Garton Ash and Judt highlight the importance of historical memory. Due to the
near continuous German and Russian occupation of the Central European lands in the
twentieth century, the Central Europeans lionise all positive self-made history. Therefore, “the
period before 1939” is the central historical reference point in Central Europe (Garton Ash,
1989, p. 126). In Czechoslovakia, this period was remembered especially through the
figurehead of Tomáš Masaryk, Czechoslovakia’s first president (1918-1935). His bust had
been commissioned often after the defeat of German hegemony, only to be confiscated or
obliterated during the Communist reign. Consequently, Czech intellectual dissidents kept his
busts hidden in the relative safety of their homes so that the statues avoided the terror of the
‘Regime of Forgetting’. This demonstrates their commitment to exercise their own memory
freely, to their nation’s past and to its future. Both authors have lectured on Central and East
21
The Looking Glass World of British Intellectuals Timothy Garton Ash and Tony Judt
European history, Judt even did so temporarily in Central Europe. From 1985 to 1986 he
taught East European history in Czechoslovakia during underground lectures.
Judt’s other pursuit in the Czech lands was the dissemination of samizdat, i.e. “the
clandestine or illegal copying and distribution of literature (orig. and chiefly in the U.S.S.R.);
an ‘underground press’; a text or texts produced by this” (“Samizdat”, 2013, n.p.), the second
component of national consciousness as identified by Judt and Garton Ash. Samizdat was the
mouth-to-mouth for, and moreover, the core of Central European literature during the
Communist regime. Some intellectual resistance fighters, like Jirina Siklová, enlisted with
Charta 77 in order “to prevent the rush to perdition of Czech literature” (quoted in Fogteloo,
2012, p. 4). Judt himself smuggled samizdat texts in Central Europe, and was amazed by the
eagerness of students to discuss them (Judt, 2010a, p. 169). Conversely, Garton Ash, always
the Central European guru, invites the reader into the dissidents’ chambers, their secret
meetings, and their thoughts through interviews. He reports on the trials of producing and
distributing samizdat and the awe-inspiring number (around sixteen-hundred) of periodicals
and journals (Garton Ash, 1989, p. 97). Although, writing or distributing samizdat literature
involves risk of life, “virtually all the best contemporary Czech writers are published in
samizdat” (Garton Ash, 1989, p. 59). That some periodicals were only published for one or
two issues, illustrates the danger of the transaction even more. In Poland, samizdat was used
as regular course material during the successful Solidarity period (1980-1981) and in the
subsequent period when acquired liberties lingered. Garton Ash recounts the story of a
university professor in Poland, where the student could more easily obtain the unofficial book
1984 (the classic novel by George Orwell in 1949) or The Origins of Totalitarianism (by
Hannah Arendt, 1951), from among their fellow students than the state-produced mandatory
texts (1989, p. 98).
The consciousness of the nation is advanced further by the power of words. It is Judt’s
voice that is dominant in this section, a ‘positive’ attribute of his retrospective analysis. To
him, personally, the worth of words was immense, particularly, as the effects of ALS (a motor
neuron disease Judt suffered from since 2008) worsened and the use of his limbs deteriorated.
Before long, he was left only with his love for words and literature. He was doomed to
endless inward reflection. In The Memory Chalet he explains, “If words fall into disrepair,
what will substitute? They are all we have” (Judt, 2010a, p. 154). Incredibly, his work on the
Central European intellectual, even in situ, maintains a detached voice, in which “rhetorical
flexibility allows for a certain feigned closeness conveying proximity while maintaining
distance” (Judt, 2010a, p. 155). To the Central European intellectual, especially to the
22
The Looking Glass World of British Intellectuals Timothy Garton Ash and Tony Judt
dissenting intellectual, the worth of a word was equalled by a sentence to prison (as Havel
demonstrated). The signing of Charta 77 meant the relinquishment of your employment. The
Communist regime inherently reinforced the importance and power of a word and its author
by connecting it to heavy punishments. The Communist regime does find a suitable revenge
for the dissident’s rise in significance in “increasingly harsh discrimination and persecution:
Hungarian-language teaching abolished; Hungarian book and magazine publishing reduced to
a trickle” (Garton Ash, 1989, p. 139). Fortunately, the Hungarian dissidents who continued to
publish Hungarian texts that promoted the nation overcame this impediment.
Generally, the dissident activities, scale and organisation of the intellectuals
skyrocketed concerning numbers and influence during the 1980s. However, this increase did
not run parallel throughout Central Europe, which Tony Judt emphasises in large measure.
Previous events and the degree of political interference had manipulated the progress in that
respect in the nations. Roughly speaking, Poland and Hungary were fortunate to suffer a
lighter version of Communist suppression. Czechoslovakia, by contrast, had to endure one of
the toughest dictatorships of the Eastern Bloc (Fogteloo, 2012, p.7).
As Judt argues, the particular historical background of the nation brought about the
became the First Secretary of the Communist Party in Czechoslovakia. He advocated a more
‘human face for Socialism’ and introduced an action programme which held out the prospect
of extensive liberalisation for the people. Unfortunately, the time was not ripe in Moskow for
a degree of freedom to that extent. Thus, the Prague Spring of 1968 was ended by the Soviet
invasion of Czechoslovakia under the pretext of the Brezhnev doctrine. Ultimately, the event
led to years of ‘normalisation’ (i.e. violent repression), under the leadership of Gustáv Husák,
a conservative Communist who reversed all the newly procured liberties. The period of
normalisation led to a huge brain drain to the West. More importantly, it chilled all forms of
active and organised dissent.
At long last in 1977, the Czechoslovakian resistance formulated Charta 77, which, in
sum, enjoyed the support of the most well-known dissident (to the West), Václav Havel.
Nevertheless, significant headway to advance the quest for freedom could not be made.
Essential to the foundation of Charta 77 was the focus on human rights, as Tony Judt and
Garton Ash both stress (Judt in Fogteloo, 2012, p.7; Garton Ash, 1989, p. 57). Due to the
heavy persecution in Czechoslovakia, the founding fathers, among others Jan Patoçka and
Havel, subjoined a disclaimer with Charta 77’s manifest. The organisation was not, and it
could not be a “dissident, political organisation” (Garton Ash, 1989, p. 57). Garton Ash
23
The Looking Glass World of British Intellectuals Timothy Garton Ash and Tony Judt
records this, but curiously enough, he refrains from commenting on the contradictory nature
of the undertaking, for the creation of Charta 77 was catapulted forward by the impetus of the
trial, mentioned in the quote by Havel in the above. Garton Ash displays here, for the first
time, his weakness for Havel’s person. Now there was a unified opposition, “the voices heard
ranged across the political spectrum from embittered social democrats to nostalgic
monarchists but they were united in their anti-Communism” (Judt, 1990b, p. 27). The ‘antiCommunism’ was, of course, a critique of the ideological current of the regime. Marie Winn
examines the case of Charta 77 further by posing the question of ‘why did the workers not
join Charta 77, as they did in Poland?’ There appears to have been a gap between intellectuals
and workers in Czechoslovakia for as the workers argue, “of course you will fight for your
principles, you make good money with them [work published in the West and donations]”
(Winn, 1987, p. 4). Winn jumps to this conclusion that money and misperception of the
intellectuals were the cause of the gap between intellectuals and workers. However, it is more
plausible that the particular circumstances in Poland were exceptional and Czech history
would not lend itself to building the bridge. Of course, the reality of the dangerous
undertaking drove them away. The authorities, indeed, castigated the leaders of the
movement, as Jan Pato ka found to his cost. An unscheduled visit from Dutch Minister of
Foreign Affairs Max van der Stoel resulted in the capture and death of the founding father
(Fogteloo, 2012, p. 2-3). The political affiliation and potential of Charta 77, therefore, had
been recognised, assessed, and quenched.
Ga
on the other hand, to be particularly effective on the political front. From October 1980 to
December 1981, Solidarity was the official trade union centred on the workers of the
shipyards in Gdansk. Timothy Garton Ash, present at the birth of Solidarity in Gdansk, notes,
“One of the hallmarks of Solidarity was the close links it established between intellectuals and
workers. These links are symbolised at the highest levels by the relationship between [worker]
Lech
nd his [intellectual] advisors” (Garton Ash, 1989, p. 97). The intellectual
members of the union had previously been organised in KOR (Polish acronym for Worker’s
Defence Committee, 1976). After the creation of Solidarity, KOR merged into Solidarity,
powerful influence of the Polish Pope, who advocated a more active role for the Church. The
power of the union was underlined and facilitated by the support from the Catholic Church
establishes the Pope’s significance as, “the reference point for various opposition groups in
24
The Looking Glass World of British Intellectuals Timothy Garton Ash and Tony Judt
the same way Jan Pato ka was for the Czechs” (2009, p. 43). Garton Ash, again on the spot
during the speeches by the Pope, remembers the Pope speaking with an indirect voice about
backing of solidarity, never with a capital initial, but it was implied in his speech. In
accordance, Catholic Churches and chaplaincies attached to universities offered leading
dissident intellectuals opportunity to share their knowledge with students. The backing
position of the Polish Catholic Church towards anti-Communist tendencies was quite unique,
for it was not reciprocated in Czechoslovakia or Hungary. Despite the Church’s apparent
undivided support, both Garton Ash and Judt criticise the Church as well. The institution also
had a Janus face: it had to allow the state to control the appointments of leaders and all its
activities in general. Solidarity was the first and a vast trade union (whose membership
included about one third of the entire Polish population) to be condoned by the state. Until the
interposition of General Jaruzelski in December 1981 (pressed by Russia) and the
introduction of martial law, the trade union had been forcing the government to liberalise laws
(such as the Higher Education Act). Despite rabid efforts, such as the “jailing of Solidarity
leaders” (Garton Ash, 1989, p. 97), and its newly illegal status Solidarity maintained a
presence both underground and aboveground. ‘Normalisation’ of Poland firstly aimed to
“crush the worker’s Solidarity” (Garton Ash, 1989, p. 100). Therefore, it is difficult to
establish the worker’s share in the subsequent years of Solidarity, that is, until 1988. The
Polish government continued to be one of the most compliant in the region. After turbulent
unrest and strikes by workers in 1988, in the following year, there were free parliamentary
elections in which Solidarity was participating as a legitimate party. They triumphed with a
striking victory and formed a coalition with the Communist trade union after which,
according to Adam Michnik’s famous words “your president, our Prime Minister”,
Solidarity’s Tadeusz Mazowiecki was the first freely elected Prime Minister of Poland.
Thus, the face of dissident intellectuals in Poland and Czechoslovakia was hugely
divergent. The intellectual dissidents in Poland have been much more effective on the
political platform than their contemporaries in Czechoslovakia owing to the lack of workers’
support, backing by the Church and overall more ‘obliging’ attitude from the state in Poland.
In Czechoslovakia the intellectuals, therefore, inclined more towards a culturally subversive
attitude, whereas in Poland the cultural element was accompanied by a very present political
activity.
It is remarkable that both protagonists refuse to turn much of their attention to
Hungary. This is probably emanates from, amongst others, the impression of the dissenting
intellectual as more subdued and reserved in Hungary. There was “a relatively small extent of
25
The Looking Glass World of British Intellectuals Timothy Garton Ash and Tony Judt
dissident subcultures”, moreover, these subcultures were more moderate and even privileged
with a “soft dictatorship” (Bozóki, 2009, p. 42). Samizdat served a moral function of
circulating information about the clash of the dissident and Communist camps. Overtly, their
discourse covered human rights, although, covertly, they advocated the political message that
these rights could only be obtained by fighting for them. Garton Ash’s experiences in
Hungary appear to a lesser extent in The Uses of Adversity. However, a secret conference with
intellectuals from Central and Western Europe taking the stage is placed in Budapest,
December 1985. Where previous conferences like these were shut down, this time the
Hungarian police condones the meeting. This tolerance reiterates the softer side of
Communism in Hungary. Towards 1989, the dissenting intellectuals together turned towards
the political, voicing their opinion in a “declaration against police brutality” (Bozóki, 2009,
p.44). Their voices were now heard in the critical public sphere. Bozóki’s assumption is that
the people, once it came to elections, would vote for trustworthiness, which they found in the
dissenting intellectual with his previously moral and now political intentions (2009, p.44).
Thus, the catalyst for the foundation of Charta 77, namely ‘truth’, here led to an innovation of
the role of the intellectual in Hungary.
2.2.2 The Relationship of the Central European Dissident Intellectuals with Britain
and Western Europe
There was no united Central European dissident intellectual approach to its
relationship with Britain and Western Europe. In every country the manifestation of
dissidence was entirely different regarding organisation, political force, circulation of
samizdat, and other cultural displays of intellectual dissidence. However, an interpretation of
Judt and Garton Ash’s work stresses that the point of view of the dissident is determined by
the overriding importance of the stability of a national identity, or in some cases, the palpably
shambolic nature of this identity. Tony Judt underpins this schism for which he draws lines
between the relative steady Poland and Hungary versus fickly Czechoslovakia.
Judt reasonably argues that the problematic past of the Czech Republic has
complicated its relationship to Western Europe. Despite this, Czechoslovakia focussed its
gaze unremittingly towards Western Europe (in which they include Britain, in contrast to
Britain itself) throughout the Soviet siege. Firstly, the country is divided in its essence by the
dichotomy between the Czech and the Slovakian lands. This further complicates the matter of
national identity. Timothy Garton Ash, therefore, recognises the problem and concludes that
26
The Looking Glass World of British Intellectuals Timothy Garton Ash and Tony Judt
his focus is solely on Czech nationality. Since this thesis is centred on the work of these
intellectuals, it too will focus on the Czech case. The question of ‘who are we?’ is equally
frustrating to solely the Czech citizens. As will be mentioned in the next section of this
chapter, it was difficult, or even impossible for Westerners to understand the Polish
intricacies, the Czech identity is even harder to understand. As a table from the Czech
Statistical Office shows, in 2011 only 63% of the people living in the Czech Republic was of
Czech nationality, other nationalities include Moravian (4,9%), Slovak (1,4%), Silesian,
Polish, German (all <0,5%), and not identified (26%) (2012, p.1). Although this count is from
2011, it is still an exemplary demonstration of the diversity of minority nationalities, as it
would have been during the Communist reign, though in a lesser ratio. Tony Judt argues that
the Czech’s insistence of a common European identity should be seen as “a particularly Czech
way of having an identity of their own” (Judt, 1990a, p. 141). Milan Kundera, who fought the
battle for independence as an exile in Western Europe, fits in perfectly within this assumption.
His work has portrayed a cultural importance (with political ambitions) of Central Europe as a
whole for the existence of a European identity. It was his voice that carried through to the
international scene and gave the Czech lands a new identity. Strangely, the inhabitants of
Czech lands were deceived twice, since the Czech citizens still did not have one actual
identity, only one that was imaginary. Secondly, Western Europe recognised the existence and
significance of Central Europe and the Czech lands only in dribs and drabs.
According to Judt, the relationship between Polish and Hungarian dissident
intellectuals and Western Europe was more distant, although they were still envious of the
West European liberal society. Their identities were less shaken by historical conquests of
their territories. So, they are secure in their national identity. Polish writers even “look East
rather than West for their roots” (Judt, 1990b, p. 47). Further analysis of ‘the quest for
understanding’ will be conducted in the following. The extended liberties in Poland in effect
since the rise of Solidarity did cause a more visible lack of West European liberties.
Notwithstanding, some universities were able to educate the students about novels such as
1984. Their research was lagging behind since the research materials and technical
innovations had become antiquated. The scientific levels of Western and Central, and Eastern
Europe, therefore, grew increasingly askew. This caused a longing for freedom as it was
enjoyed in West European.
As Judt suggests, the Polish dissident intellectuals look only to the West “in search of
understanding and contact” (Judt, 1990b, p. 47). This is evident in Judt’s turn to Central and
East European history. As his Polish friends Jan Gross and Basia attempt to unfold the
27
The Looking Glass World of British Intellectuals Timothy Garton Ash and Tony Judt
mysteries of lost Polish culture, literature and ideas, Judt cannot grasp the concepts. He is
even somewhat indifferent to them, but “it clearly mattered to her” (Judt & Snyder, 2012, p.
204). Basia’s need for Judt to understand her predicament, her loss of culture, a piece of her
identity so that it could carry on living was intangible for her foreign listeners. Judt continues
his plea by stating that Westerners “were never truly expected to penetrate the mystique”
(Judt & Snyder, 2012, p. 204). His excusatory comment strikes the reader as apologetic for his
neglect of the region before his turn. He argues that unless you have actually lived there, lived
through it all, you cannot be expected to know, which is why the Polish Pope John Paul II is
of huge importance for Poles. Jan Gross, the young scholar who brings Judt into contact to the
one scholar “who could present Poland with sympathy and indeed with understanding,
without lapsing into apologetics” (Judt & Snyder, 2012, p. 205; Gross, 1990, p.1). Timothy
Garton Ash, a young scholar of Central Europe, is the person who knows Central Europe
through and through, which is partly the reason for his substantial influence. He is the insider,
par excellence. Tony Judt is the typical outsider, as he always was in his life. For other West
European scholars than Garton Ash, the problematic history of Central Europe was too
intricate to comprehend. As explained in chapter one of this thesis, Westerners and Central
Europeans alike have always infused Central Europe with their own version of what
happened, which makes it even harder to push through the veils.
One other aspect furthering the Central European cause was the lack of economic
chitchat in the texts that reached West European and British audiences. The European
Community in the 1980s strove for a monetary union, so the allusion to potential
interconnectedness on an economic level would have alarmed the European Community’s
members. This alarm would have been set off because of the use of statistics in economics,
the much sought-after Western affiliation would be at too close quarters, scaring the
Westerners away. They were not ready for an enlarged Union. It was a public secret that they
talked about enlargement to the East, but they did not think about it. In Britain, the 1980s
were full of economic reforms pushed through by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. An
economic approximation, therefore, would have stirred the pot even more, thwarting the
potential of political rapprochement.
2.2.3 The Marginalia of Central European Intellectual Dissidence
Although, the role of the intellectual as a dissident in society seems rather impressive
Judt and Garton Ash do place question marks, mainly about the relationship between the
dissenting intellectual and rest (and majority) of the population. In Poland, the relationship
28
The Looking Glass World of British Intellectuals Timothy Garton Ash and Tony Judt
worked particularly well, because of the special bond that the intellectuals and workers
realised and cherished. The popularity of Solidarity is demonstrated by the fact that about a
third of the entire Polish population was a member of the trade union. Solidarity “was the one
true mass movements of opposition in the entire region” (Falk, 2011, p. 327). Together, the
workers and intellectuals accomplished free elections before the fall of the Berlin Wall. The
majority of the problems arise in a Hungarian or Czechoslovakian context. Charta 77 was a
small group comprising only 1864 persons (Judt, 1992, p. 102) who, to be sure, spoke for the
population in general by addressing human rights. However, they were only a small group
with whom “most of the audience did not wish to associate with” (Judt, 1994, p.14). The risk
of personal persecution, and added danger by association for your family was great (Fogteloo,
2012, p. 6). In Hungary, as Bozóki argues, intellectual dissidence was quite insecure about
society’s capability to “identify with their goals” (2012, p. 43). On this point Timothy Garton
Ash disagrees with Václav Havel’s opinion that fears had been overcome and that private
opinion had increasingly so become public opinion. Havel’s thesis rests on the assumption
“you don’t need to be an intellectual to feel threatened by missiles” (Havel quoted in Garton
Ash, 1989, p. 62-3). Of course, everyone is threatened by missiles, however, as the numbers
demonstrate, the majority of Poles, Hungarians and Czechs did not vociferate their complaints
as the dissenting intellectuals did. Many of them agreed with the Communist reign and
continued their support after 1989, as is demonstrated by the 15% in parliamentary elections
for the Communist delegation in the Czech Republic.
2.3 The Central European Intellectual Post-1989
“The real politics of power rather than the intellectual and moral ‘anti-politics’ of dissidence.”
Timothy Garton Ash, 1999, p. 225-6.
2.3.1 Intellectual turned Politician
From 1989 to 1993, the Central European (dissenting) intellectuals were on the horns
of a hellish dilemma, which Garton Ash and Judt discuss at length. Would the intellectuals
enter the lions’ den of politics, or would they stick to their pens and retreat to their world of
intellect? Tony Judt retrospectively analyses the intellectual in The Memory Chalet and
Thinking the Twentieth Century. In his masterpiece Postwar, he refers to them only
sporadically, however, he does mention the progress of the post-Communist governments in
29
The Looking Glass World of British Intellectuals Timothy Garton Ash and Tony Judt
general. Garton Ash published his essays as a historian writing about the present. However, he
lacks objectivity exactly because of his up-close and personal approach. Firstly, both authors
set the stage of their discussion.
The amount of intellectual involvement in the process of politicisation of the
intellectual dissidents is partly the result of the degree and pace of liberalisation of
Communist society. The dissenting intellectuals in Hungary and Poland took the lead in 1988
during the period of liberalisation of the Communist regimes. In Hungary these intellectuals
advisors from Solidarity were the confidants of the people. On the other hand, in
Czechoslovakia the transition from the firm grip of the Communist regime to its collapse took
just five weeks, in 1989. It is astonishing that the political leadership of a country fell on the
shoulders of dissenting intellectuals. However, the period of suppression by the Nazis and the
Communists surpassed the lifespan of the old generation of politicians. Now, “there were no
great leaders to fall back on” (Garton Ash, 1999, p. 37). The year of preparation in Poland and
Hungary was enough to roughly stabilise the country’s political opposition. This political
opposition, therefore, could readily fill the political vacuum left by the collapse of the Berlin
Wall and Communist regimes. In glaring contrast, the void created in Czechoslovakia’s
politics was only hastily filled with a motley collection of intellectual independents,
intellectual apparatniks and intellectual dissidents.
The post-Communist governments were filled to the brim by dissenting intellectuals,
however, could they transform their “anti-politics of dissidence” as if by magic, into “real
politics of power” (Garton Ash, 1999, p. 225-6)? Especially in Garton Ash’s work it seems as
if the intellectuals did not struggle to undergo the metamorphosis into a fully-fledged political
animal. Considering the fact that the majority was without any political experience, this
counters Garton Ash’s usual trenchant observations. The political novices include, amongst
importantly, Václav Havel. Amongst these men are the Prime Ministers and presidents of the
early 1990s until 2000s, which further reinforces Garton Ash’s guileless attitude. Garton Ash
assumes that Geremek fully embraced his new political status by disregarding his intellectual
cloak, “he now gives political answers” (Garton Ash, 1999, p.111). Adam Michnik, former
distributer of samizdat and editor-incandidacy for president, temporarily followed suit as member of the Polish parliament. In
Garton Ash’s narration they have, indeed as if by magic, separated politics from their
intellectual activities.
30
The Looking Glass World of British Intellectuals Timothy Garton Ash and Tony Judt
Judt and Garton Ash, then discuss the case of Václav Havel, who contrastingly was in
the remarkable position to lightly butter his bread on both sides. Tony Judt, as well as Garton
Ash, reports on the concessions that Václav Havel made during his involuntary rise to
Czechoslovakia’s highest echelons of power. Their eagerness to place Havel on a pedestal and
to laud him with a venerating spirit oozes through the pages. Judt celebrates him as “no one
individual of comparable public standing emerged in any other (post-)Communist country”
(Judt, 2005, p. 620). Garton Ash muses that, in Havel “those characteristic post-communist
mutations, dilemmas and ironies are concentrated – almost as in an archetype – in the person
of the writer-president” (1999, p.150). Havel had reluctantly consented to become president.
This position and his disposition towards the political side offered him the opportunity to
engage in both intellectual activities as well as politics. The Czech office of presidency
included the power to veto laws and to appoint the highest judges. However, by and large
Havel needed the signature of the executive power, Prime Minister Václav Klaus, to establish
new laws. Judt and Garton Ash’s romanticised picture of Havel as the anti-Communist
dissident was one that stuck with both intellectual authors and largely with the world outside
the Czech Republic.
Havel’s lionisation by both authors is best pictured in Garton Ash’s work, because of
his direct contact and personal relationship with Havel. Garton Ash wittily relates the intricate
details of a silent debate between political adversaries Václav Klaus, Prime Minister of the
Czech Republic and Václav Havel, President of the Republic. Klaus, in contrast to Havel, did
not distribute samizdat or participate in underground dissidence at all. He was part intellectual
apparatnik, part independent intellectual and he simply offered his knowledge on economics
during the five-week revolution in Czechoslovakia. His particular background automatically
disqualified him from even the potential approval of Judt and Garton Ash, even though his
actual political ken might have been outstanding. Garton Ash disdainfully claims that Klaus
became known for his “bold political salesmanship” (1999, p.151). The PEN (a worldwide
association of writers) conference stages a telling opening speech in which Havel advocates
the independence of intellectuals. However, he does prescribe an intellectual impact on
politics, namely by offering a critical voice. Judt states that Havel continued this “distinctively
apolitical disposition” (Judt, 2005, p. 621) in his political work. It is evident that Judt and
Garton Ash both accept this view. Thereby, they implicitly argue that his distance from actual
31
The Looking Glass World of British Intellectuals Timothy Garton Ash and Tony Judt
politics is far enough. Garton Ash further enunciates Havel’s point of view that the political
and the intellectual should be necessarily and inherently “adversarial” (Garton Ash, 1999, p.
154). Since politicians advocate their own ‘truth’, which is always one-sided, the intellectual
should attempt a display of the whole. Garton Ash here lashes out at Klaus for ‘truth’ can
directly be linked to the foundation of Charta 77, whence Havel
e. not Klaus)
voiced the need for living in truth. Klaus, himself an “anti-intellectual intellectual” (Garton
Ash, 1999, 150), contrastingly advocates that there be no gap between intellectuals and
politicians. In Garton Ash’s essay Klaus is the subject of sarcasm, moreover, his character is
ridiculed (Garton Ash, 1999, p. 151).
Dr. Klaus received me in his tastefully appointed office, its walls decorated with framed honorary
doctorates, prizes and photographs of himself with very important persons. In the course of an
interesting conversation, mainly about Europe, he thrust into my hands a selection of his lectures and
speeches from the last three years, which he had got his office to type up, photocopy and bind. The
collector’s item of, as it were, prime-ministerial samizdat – entitled Dismantling Socialism: An
Interim Report – well documents his characteristic mixture of sharp economic analysis and bold
political salesmanship. Helpfully, he points out the best pieces.
Of course, Garton Ash implies the lack of best pieces, the distastefulness of his office,
and the implied samizdat reflected only on his shameful failure to participate in the
underground and his mild cooperation with the Communist state. Garton Ash’s partiality is
astonishing. He appears to be locked in love with Havel, as he was with Solidarity. The only
difference is that he acknowledged he was wrong in protracted Solidarity liking. In contrast,
he failed to recognise Havel’s shadier and more controversial attributes.
Timothy Garton Ash is critical of the general Central European intellectual-turnedpoliticians tendency to neglect to learn from united Germany’s developments, however he
quickly falls prey to a defensive attitude of Central Europe. Central Europe appeared to have
become Zwischen-Europa again after the fall of the Wall. As Garton Ash synthesises, the
Central Europeans saw themselves as victims, which legitimised their neglect to carefully
reconstruct their parliamentary systems. They would not need build-in protection in order to
prevent a totalitarian system from arising from the smouldering remains of the Communist
32
The Looking Glass World of British Intellectuals Timothy Garton Ash and Tony Judt
system (Garton Ash, 1999, p. 31-2). Their neglect to imitate German models is exemplary of a
continued hatred towards Nazi Germany. The complex history of Central Europe, and the
German variant Mitteleuropa had not been forgotten. The intellectuals-turned-politicians with
their regard for history, had failed to perform as politicians by putting their intellectual
interests first above those of the state. Remarkably, Garton Ash continues with a plea
defending the lack of build-in protection (Garton Ash, 1999, p. 44). The mechanism of
understanding has brought him to the defence of Central Europe.
2.3.2 The Politician-Intellectual Returns an Intellectual
Tony Judt is, thankfully, more analytical and reports on the misconceptions of these
dissident intellectuals who started their political careers, since often, these flights would not
soar into the sky. After a few turbulent years many returned to academic or journalistic life.
Adam Michnik realised this quite early on and quit parliament after one year, in 1990, to
return to his journalistic activities. Václav Havel, on the other hand, concluded his political
career at the end of his second term in 2003.
Judt argues that in the mid-1990s, this romanticised picture of Havel as the dissidentintellectual with his moral politics increasingly, and rightly, became diluted. As the critical
journalists from the Czech Republic and e.g. from The New York Times stated, Havel never
shied away from controversy, and regularly obstructed and interfered with day-to-day politics
by applying his veto rights. These interpositions plus the impracticable, sky-high expectations
of the people provoked a decline in the president’s popularity. Tony Judt’s analysis of
intellectuals in politics in general during the mid-1990s adds to this decline. He argues that by
then, dissident intellectuals were seen as “an embarrassment, a reminder of a time when most
of their audience did not wish to associate with them” (Judt, 1994, p. 14). Moreover, their
political activity was “an annoying prolongation of the dissident conscience which most
Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, Poles and the others had, and still have, little in common” (Judt,
1994, p. 14). Judt is a clear adversary of the dissident intellectual in politics as he argues that
the younger generations were “bored and indifferent” (Judt, 2005, p. 785) by the problems
that concerned the intelligentsia before 1989, which now rapidly decreased their relevance in
politics. It is not unsurprising then that, although Havel voluntary stood for re-election in
1998, he only won in the second round. Even more so, he won by the skin of his teeth
(Erlanger, 1999, p.1). The intellectual-turned-politician now became “superfluous” to the state
(Judt, 2010, p. 117). The overwhelming support of the workers was long gone now, mirroring
33
The Looking Glass World of British Intellectuals Timothy Garton Ash and Tony Judt
events in Poland where Solidarity had disappeared. Generally, scholars seem to agree with
Garton Ash’s laudation, because locating an analysis of Havel’s decline or a critical review of
his political contribution in the 1990s is like finding a needle in a haystack, while his triumph
is abundantly represented. Only the domestic newspapers and the occasional New York Times
journalist (e.g. Erlanger and Kaufman) report on the pervasive dissatisfaction of Klaus and the
Czech citizens with their president’s conduct. Havel, the provocative and controversial
intellectual definitely overstayed his welcome on the political arena.
Notwithstanding his later domestic unpopularity, Garton Ash and Judt have a point
that Havel, the person, was a true external figurehead for the Czech Republic. Once
independence had been reached the united dissidents spread across the political landscape.
Now they were each other’s opponents. To the outside world, shocked as it was due the
sudden collapse of the Berlin Wall, unity, or at least the appearance of unity, became of vital
importance for the future of the independent states. To the West, and to the domestic audience
in the beginning of the 1990s, Václav Havel presidency represented this unity. His personal
leadership was, namely in the early 1990s, “decisive at moments” (Garton Ash, 1999, p. 415).
The Central European cooperation was exemplary of this decisive power. Havel was strongly
pro-European and his stature helped push forward this political objective that was the
ultimate, and often the only, aim of the Central European foreign policy. Havel’s peers, like
his Hungarian colleague Árpád Göncz, “preached with him” (Garton Ash, 1999, p. 387). Judt
happily concurs with Havel that the turn towards Western Europe was “the only option”
(1994, p. 6). As Rick Fawn illustrates in his article, it is unclear who or what initiated the
foundation of Visegrad. However, he states that after weighing other contributions, “the
practical driving force was Havel” (Fawn, 2008, p. 679). Havel’s rallying stature was
definitely a beacon of hope for the Visegrad 3 (and after 1993, the Visegrad 4), and,
moreover, for Western Europe. When Havel finally stepped down in 2003, he had guided the
Czech Republic into the European Union and into NATO membership.
34
The Looking Glass World of British Intellectuals Timothy Garton Ash and Tony Judt
Chapter Three: The British Intellectual in the Looking Glass
“Yes, intellectuals in Poland matter – perhaps more than intellectuals ever should”.
Timothy Garton Ash, 1989, p. 107-8.
3.1 The British and West European Intellectual
3.1.1 The British Intellectual
Timothy Garton Ash and Tony Judt are both British, however, their outlook on what
an intellectual should strive to be is not necessarily for one hundred per cent a reflection of
what the British (public) intellectual is.
Firstly, the British intellectual’s “embarrassment” (Johnson, 2005, p. 9) of his stature
as an intellectual, or a public intellectual, affected Tony Judt to a dwindling degree as he bent
his mind to Central and Eastern Europe and, especially, as his illness progressed. As Daniel
Johnson notes, traditionally the British have been “self-deprecating” about intelligence (2005,
p. 9). “In Britain the term is rarely used, being regarded as something Continental and
pretentious” (Garton Ash, 1999, p. 172). Previously, you became a “man of letters”. Now, you
become an “intellectual” (Johnson, 2005, p. 9). The first concept implies an academic
component, which can be respected by the British. The latter has a decidedly more active
dimension to it of ‘flaunting’ one’s knowledge. Tony Judt conformed to the British model on
this subject during the first half of his career. He was more at home in academia than he was
outside of it. His intellectual reawakening catalysed by the introduction to Central Europe,
altered him in this respect. The candour of 1968 was reawakened in him. Suddenly there was
urgency to an intellectual matter, as there had been in 1968. His research into Central Europe
urged Judt into new activities, by participating in public debate on the matter. Timothy
Snyder, co-author of Thinking the Twentieth Century noted that he “had the intuition that
Eastern Europe had broadened Tony’s ethical and intellectual outlook” (Judt & Snyder, 2012,
p. xi). Judt increasingly spoke out to the public, even more so as his illness suppressed the use
of his limbs and his voice. His intellectual ‘embarrassment’ had been replaced by a
zealousness to educate the future generations with his knowledge. This knowledge is not
restrained to British topics, which would be the limit for most British intellectuals (Judt, 2005,
p. 206), but he shared his knowledge of the ‘Continent’ as well. He set aside his personal
reluctance and utilised his precious last faculty, his mind, to convey his ‘truth’. Like his
35
The Looking Glass World of British Intellectuals Timothy Garton Ash and Tony Judt
fellows of the 1968-generation, Judt deemed he had nothing left to lose. Therefore, he fought
for his ‘truth’, instead of being embarassed about his knowledge.
Although, Garton Ash himself did not problematize his stature of being a ‘public
intellectual’, to the British he seemingly walked a tightrope between what they perceived in
Britain as mutually exclusive popularisation and originality. The recognition of being a
‘public intellectual’, as Christopher Hitchens remarks in his 2008 commentary on the
publication of the top 100 Public Intellectuals by Prospect and Foreign Policy, is given to
you, you cannot give it to yourself (Hitchens, 2008, p.1). Inherent to this remark is the fact
that others should recognise your work. However, the public intellectual who popularises
his/her work will find himself loathed by the British intellectuals and the public. These other
intellectuals abhor the idea of popular support because it implies a trimming of one’s sail
according to the wind. Above all, the British value “original thinking” (Johnson, 2005, p. 10).
Garton Ash, therefore, walked a fine line, for his unconventional thoughts and aims would
require popular consensus. His goals of “trying to explain to Western readers that Prague,
Budapest and Warsaw belong to Central and not to Eastern Europe” (Garton Ash, 1999, p.
184) and consequently, that Western Europe should integrate the Czech Republic, Hungary
and Poland were politically unrequited. However, his intellectual efforts were applauded and
became more popular, for he had a fresh vision of Central Europe. Moreover, he had a novel
perspective of Europe as a whole, which was unique in Eurosceptic Britain. Garton Ash
thought outside the box while he was the ultimate insider in the trials of Central Europe,
precisely because he understood those trials.
3.1.2 The West European Intellectual
These two components namely, embarrassment and the emphasis on original ideas,
were lacking or of minor importance to the West European intellectual. In the British mind,
the term ‘West European intellectual’ excludes Britain. The primary West European
intellectual is the Parisian intellectual. Traditionally, the French intellectual was “wellrounded” (Judt, 2010, p. 113), but had a “lack of imagination” (Judt, 2010, p. 115). During
Judt’s visiting year at École normale supérieure in Paris, he was astonished by the amount of
knowledge that they could drum up. In this French scene, there was no room for
embarrassment. Judt was less than impressed by their originality (Judt, 2010, p. 113). On the
Continent, the intellectual was accepted and was an essential part of the public debate. This
brings with it responsibility and tools to influence a wide audience.
36
The Looking Glass World of British Intellectuals Timothy Garton Ash and Tony Judt
The all-round aspect prompts the question whether being a public intellectual is even
possible nowadays, for he should be able to contribute to every topic of conversation, which
has become impossible in a diverse and multicultural environment. Judt and Garton Ash
narrate in line with the argument that, because of the sheer and impossible volume of the
diverse environment that the French intellectual is in decline. In terms of vital participation to
the public debate, the Central European intellectual has taken over the role of the public
intellectual.
In sum, Garton Ash was the British intellectual but with a Continental appreciation for
the stature and advantages of the public intellectual. His idolisation of the Central European
intellectual caused him to adhere to their standards as well, i.e. ideas and the backing of those
ideas regardless of the political consequences. Tony Judt, on the other hand, previously was
the typical British intellectual, shy of his profession and shy of participating in public debate.
Central Europe transformed him to a continental (i.e. Central and West European) European
intellectual with a taste for public discussion, for a well-roundedness that is underlined by his
masterpiece Postwar, and mostly a Central European appreciation for ideas. However, he had
not lost his British rigour in terms of being original and following his own path. Both
intellectuals are, therefore, far from the stereotype British intellectual that they sketch in their
work.
3.2 The Central European Intellectual: Garton Ash and Judt’s Prescription
and Reckoning
Interwoven into their descriptive, opinionated discourse about Central Europe, Judt
and Garton Ash adjudicate the role of the intellectual and thereby, they invent their own ideal
intellectual.
The British media apparatus has covered the relationship between Britain and Europe
elaborately and thereby it has contributed to the general British Eurosceptic outlook on
Europe. As Spiering notes, the media even coined the term ‘Euroscepticism’ in 1985
(Spiering, 2004, p. 132). However, he continues his argument with the statement that the
media is not to blame or laud solely for this accomplishment (Spiering, 2004, pp. 235-252).
This does beseech the question ‘if the press was involved to a growing extent in the 1980s,
what was Garton Ash and Judt’s exact contribution to the debate about Britain and Europe
since then’? And in which public sphere was the debate located: the British, the European, or
even, the Central European public sphere?
37
The Looking Glass World of British Intellectuals Timothy Garton Ash and Tony Judt
3.2.1 Timothy Garton Ash
At the basis, Garton Ash provides a narrative about Central Europe and its
intellectuals, which especially at first sight seems merely descriptive. Chapter 2.2 comprises
the gist of this descriptive discourse. However, political and opinionated undercurrents run
through his discourse as well. Chapter 2.3 highlighted this with the discussion of the case of
Václav Havel. It is noticeable that the schism for Garton Ash, namely where description is
increasingly infused with opinion, occurs around 1989, as can be witnessed in the transition
from The Uses of Adversity to History of the Present. After this point, Garton Ash even goes
beyond presenting his opinion and he produces value judgements regarding the role of the
intellectual in Central Europe. Thus, slowly but steadily the sum of these judgements specifies
the ideal intellectual according to Garton Ash.
His primary statement is that the intellectual “should be apolitical” (Garton Ash,
1999, p. 155-6), yet concerning his own discourse about Central Europe, he upholds these
values only whimsically. This inconsequent attitude mainly shines through in the case of
Václav Havel. Garton Ash clearly idolises him, consequently, he is uncritical of Havel’s
political career. Especially during Havel’s turn from dissident intellectual to politician, Garton
Ash celebrates Havel’s background and does not question its worth for future years. In The
Uses of Adversity, the author had once referred to the position of the Polish dissident
intellectual, claiming that “yes, intellectuals in Poland matter – perhaps more than
intellectuals ever should” (Garton Ash, 1989, p. 107-8). He speaks of the intellectual in
Solidarity from 1980-1981, of the considerable weight that they pulled. Yet here, Garton Ash
asserts that they carry more weight than they should. This implies that within the realm of
possibility the intellectual should, not must, steer clear of politics. The intricacy of the verb
implies that he will tolerate it, for their ends justify the means. They aspire to accomplish
independence from Communism, but they also advocate human rights, freedom of speech and
education, which are of vital importance to the practicing intellectual. Thus, Garton Ash
speaks of the political influence of the dissident intellectual in Poland. How should this
contrast to an ex-dissident intellectual filling a post in government? How does the seat of a
president compare to an intellectual working as an electrician? The answer is straightforward.
It should be treated similarly. The political game ought to be played by politicians, or antiintellectual intellectuals such as Václav Klaus, because the aims of the intellectuals would
have been accomplished by then (as indeed was the case).
In this discourse of Havel and the Polish dissident intellectual the theme of 'mattering'
shines through as an interconnection to political influence. To matter seems to be the
38
The Looking Glass World of British Intellectuals Timothy Garton Ash and Tony Judt
measuring instrument which condones or condemns this influence. Garton Ash states, "The
Western intellectual who visits his colleagues in Poland feels admiration, excitement, and,
yes, envy. Here is a place where people care, passionately, about ideas. Here is a place where
intellectuals matter. Here, in a figure like Adam Michnik, is the intellectual a Hero. Here
historians make history" (Garton Ash, 1989, p. 105). He does not merely admire Havel for his
personal accomplishments, no, he is envious of his position, for a similar tableau could not be
found in Britain, where the intellectual is condemned from politics, i.e. he does not matter.
However, Havel’s execution of his political adventure was not immaculate either. He
mattered mostly outside of the Czech Republic, but Garton Ash fails to recognise this. His
tunnel vision only highlights his own limitations in British society and the perceived glory of
the intellectual in Central Europe. His disappointment at this feat reverberates in the last
chapter of The History of the Present, "if you think you have influenced policy as a
commentator, it is usually an illusion anyway" (Garton Ash, 1999, p. 417).
However, why, if the intellectual should ideally be apolitical, is Garton Ash envious of
the political influence of the Central European intellectuals? It appears that he and his
progressively political discourse are the source of this problem. Before the events of 1989,
Garton Ash communicated to Western readers that Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic
fell under the umbrella-term of Central Europe, not Eastern Europe. He admired that the ideas
of the Central European intellectual counted in the 1980s. His own discourse was, although
quite pervasive, marginal to the support that the ideas of the Central European intellectual
enjoyed. In fact, it were these ideas that bestowed upon them political power, whether they
intended it or not. In the early 1990s, the context of the Central European debate altered.
Central Europe was now a reality to be dealt with by political Europe, instead of a cultural
fantasy (which Tony Judt fiercely contested) handled by intellectuals. Garton Ash realised
that Central Europe, as well as Western Europe was obliged to initiate a new foreign policy.
He saw his chances to fulfil his goal multiply and seized the opportunity to let his ideas shine.
He supported the sole foreign policy objective of the Central European states, namely,
integration into Western Europe. However, Garton Ash’s aims of Polish, Czech and
Hungarian inclusion into the European Union were unrealistic in the early 1990s. His envy
was now directed at the established Central European intellectual politician, for he felt that his
political argument was "quixotic" (Garton Ash, 1999, p. 418) as theirs had been in the 1980s.
However, there might be a discrepancy between his perceived condemnation of his political
influence and his actual influence on the matter in a broader public sphere.
39
The Looking Glass World of British Intellectuals Timothy Garton Ash and Tony Judt
Garton Ash had moulded his ideas of the relationship between Britain and Europe to
the public sphere of Britain. However, as he argues, the relationship between Britain and
Europe, was not about ‘Europe’ at all, it was, as Garton Ash argues, about ‘EUrope’ (Garton
Ash, 1999, p.180). Thus, essentially the debate has been transposed from a cultural habitat to
an economic and political one. His ideas were moulded to fit the British political dialogue
about Europe, but were widely disseminated throughout Europe. The typically British
approach to Europe during the late 1980s and early 1990s is one of increased Euroscepticism
and reticence, as explained in chapter 1.2. Britain contended many new developments in the
European Union, especially regarding the capitulation of monetary sovereignty to the Union.
The British felt caught in an increasingly integrationist and more bureaucratic European
Community / European Union. Prime Minister Mrs Thatcher encompassed this attitude well
in her response to ‘hostile takeover’ by the European Commission on monetary matters. “No!
No! No!” (BBC Live Democracy, 2009, n.p.), she exclaimed on October 30th 1990 in the
House of Commons. At this point in time, Timothy Garton Ash writes his most influential
works on Central Europe, The Uses of Adversity and The History of the Present. It is
remarkable that Garton Ash exudes a liberal and integrationist tone in the latter, which was
quite un-British. His pace had accelerated too fast and radically for them, as well as for the
continental Europeans, who had just woken up only to find Central Europeans standing in
their back yards. Thus, Garton Ash links his topic of interest, namely Central Europe, which
concerns cultural Europe as well as analysis of its politics, to the British discussion about
EUrope.
However, it was only once the European-wide political debate of enlargement versus
further integration heated up, that suddenly Garton Ash’s plea for Central Europe had entered
its third life in the British public sphere. Garton Ash’s involvement in this public sphere was
underlined by his employment as an advisor to Prime Minister Thatcher about the
developments in Europe (Johnson, 2005, p. 12; Garton Ash, 1999, p. 49/89). In one of his
most trenchant and clarifying essays, “Catching the Wrong Bus: Britain and Europe 1995”
(Garton Ash, 1999, p. 180-9) he answers the question, ‘why should Britain care about
Europe?’ In his response to the problem posed, Garton Ash asserts that Britain should care
because “if we don’t we’ll be left out, and because if we don’t we’ll be dragged in” (1999, p.
189). The sentence is strikingly and deceitfully simple, but Garton Ash hits the nail on its
head. Firstly, he has magically shifted a social, historical and cultural argument to a political
one. By hinting at the fact that Britain might in the future become a puppet on strings pulled
by puppeteer Europe, he forcedly chaperones the British audience to the inference that
40
The Looking Glass World of British Intellectuals Timothy Garton Ash and Tony Judt
Britain, instead, should be pro-active in Europe. This includes Central Europe. He gently
manipulates the reader into accepting his view of Europe, which combines a continental zeal
to integrate and a sceptic British rigour concerning supranational monetary and financial
matters, which he considered "a hair-raising adventure" (Garton Ash, 1999, p. 188).
Ultimately, the British government asserted itself as a proponent of the widening policy,
which was in line with Garton Ash’s argument concerning the end-goal of Central European
inclusion in the European Union through enlargement in the East.
However, the motives of the British government and Garton Ash were fundamentally
at variance concerning the Eastern enlargement. Paradoxically, Britain supported enlargement
out of the Eurosceptic belief that widening was preferred to deepening. In contrast, Garton
Ash supported the Central European application to the EU, due to his belief that Central
Europe was historically, culturally, and socially, an integral part of Europe as a whole, and
therefore, it belonged to the Union. It is ironic that Garton Ash preferred the apolitical
intellectual, for his discourse had a fundamental political leitmotif running through it.
Precisely by writing these works he undermined his own goal of intellectual apolitical
discourse. However, in the end, for Garton Ash, the scale still tips to culture, for politics was
only ever his means.
3.2.2 Tony Judt
Tony Judt has a rather more levelled contribution to Central European discourse,
because his first step into the pond of this discourse was more contemplated, hesitant, and
more time had elapsed since the inception of his topic than Garton Ash's contribution. His
main work, Postwar encompassed, as argued in the above, history as well as opinion.
Distance from the subject in time and place enabled him to reflect and formulate his own
opinions taking everything into account. His last works were markedly more opinionated, free
in form and content, and discuss the preferred attributes of the intellectual as well.
The fight for an idea is the constant factor in Judt’s preferred intellectual and it was
inextricably intertwined with Judt's turn to the public. Judt's position as an outsider to Central
Europe, Britain and continental Europe emphasises this even more so than Garton Ash does in
his discourse. As an outsider his chances at a regular team of fellow-thinkers per definition
decreased. “Tony always cared more about ideas than anything” (Homans, 2012, p. 1). He
was respected for his well-founded opinions. However, his initial choice to avoid public
debate undermines his case. If your ideas exist just on paper, to whom do they matter, and
whom do they reach? The role of English as the academic lingua franca extended his reach.
41
The Looking Glass World of British Intellectuals Timothy Garton Ash and Tony Judt
However, his choice of topic influenced and decreased his susceptibility for public debate.
The French intellectuals were the elected subject of his initial area of research. However, the
discussion around this topic rarely took him out of the ivory towers of academia. The defence
of ideas then is just bothersome. Oddly enough, on one of these rare occasions visiting
journalism, the space of the engaged intellectual in New York (which has a continental
European temperament about engagement), Judt was approached to write an article about
Central Europe. He slowly but steadily became a regular on the scene of the intellectual
engaged in Central Europe. The defence of his ideas here, in public debate, was a more
demanding struggle.
Alongside the transformation of ‘Europe’ to ‘EUrope’, Tony Judt infers that the debate
about Europe is inherently a debate about Britain itself, which leaves the Continent (mark the
capital C, for the term refers to foreign Europe, excluding Britain) as the seducing and
untrustworthy mistress. By proclaiming this, Judt deepens the British argument by one added
layer. Judt claims that the debate about Europe “would most likely be adrift and lost in
energetic but esoteric discussions concerning relations between England and Scotland” (2005,
p. 297). The reference to this domestic debate alludes to the ‘break-up of Britain’. Britain's
decline was initiated during the Second World War. Or, more specifically, the English were in
decline, because they saw their United Kingdom being ripped apart by, among other things,
the nationalism of primarily the Scottish, the Welsh, and globally, in the colonies. Therefore,
as the European Union started to branch out and diversify their integrationist attitude to other
fields (e.g. the start of a monetary union), anxiety struck the Houses of Parliament for it
refused to lose even more power to seductive Europe. Already, the British employed the terms
‘European Union’ and ‘Europe’ as synonyms. The Union’s appeal to e.g. Scotland as an
alternative supportive mater familias to Britain was another concern (Robert Cooper quoted in
Dempsie, 2012, n.p.).
The Central European rule of balance between stability of state and adherence towards
Western Europe is mirrored in the British attitude towards Central Europe. The Central
European states that were instable, like the Czech Republic, looked towards the West for
solutions. In the case of the Czechs, they regarded Western Europe as an anchor to which they
could tie their own identity. As the United Kingdom had come undone domestically, Britain
started looking towards the Continent to find solutions. Although, the British did refrain from
reapprasing their identity, which was crumbling, in Central Europe. Instead, they relocated the
perception of their domestic problems to perceived EUropean problems. Europe became the
scapegoat (UP YOURS DELORS) from which extraction was impracticable. Therefore, the
42
The Looking Glass World of British Intellectuals Timothy Garton Ash and Tony Judt
British turned towards the east to locate indirect solution and distraction. The integration of
Central European and Eastern European states served as the perfect decoy to issue away
seductive Europe at the British doorstep.
Whereas, Garton Ash works within a British public sphere, Judt conveys his ideas in
the European public sphere, which benefits from his insistence upon being well-rounded as an
intellectual. Firstly, his Postwar evidently concerns the divided continental Europe. Secondly,
Judt is at variance with the Eurosceptic and anti-Continental attitude of the British population.
Judt's dissatisfaction with the British attitude towards continental Europe is demonstrated by
the fluctuating use of ‘Continent’, and ‘continent’ to mark, respectively, the general British
opinion, and his own perspective. In his final chapters he states, “yet, taken all in all, the EU
is a good thing” (Judt, 2005, p. 732). Thus, Postwar is not merely a work of history, it is a
work of intellectual opinion. The publication of the work, moreover, was immaculately timed
to maximise the work's influence, for it was published one year after the 'big bang
enlargement' in 2004. Postwar reclaimed the position in Europe for the Central Europeans.
This reinvigorated the Central European debate. Thus, Judt has a political view of Central
Europe, however he is not politically prescriptive in his discourse as Garton Ash was. His aim
was providing a circumspect, all-inclusive look into Europe. As Anne Applebaum notes, the
European public sphere non-continental authors. She assumes that the continental European
authors were as stuck in World War II (Applebaum paraphrased in van Rensen, 2013, n.p.),
therefore the public sphere sluggishly moved forward. Tony Judt's retrospective work profited
from this near standstill, for now, he mattered.
43
The Looking Glass World of British Intellectuals Timothy Garton Ash and Tony Judt
Conclusion
Thus, Timothy Garton Ash and Tony Judt have portrayed the Central European
intellectual clearly, in a rich and contextual background, and remarkably their discourse was
infused with their own experiences and opinions. Garton Ash and Judt were both hugely
influenced by the dissident intellectual. To Judt, they were his soul mates of the 1968generation. He owed his intellectual resurrection in the 1980s and 1990s to them. Garton Ash
became intimate friends with these intellectuals who displayed that injustice could not just be
found in the history books. The change from dissidence into politicians and a return to the
intellectual occurred earlier than this thesis had anticipated. On this topic, the opinions of
Garton Ash and Judt diverge. However, overall, there is an air of disappointment not at the
return to mere ‘intellectualhood’, but at the development of this intellectual to become
marginal to society. They had converged to the Western intellectual, the realm of intellectuals
that kept their eyes focused on the floor, failing to capture new developments and participate
in public dialogue. Paradoxically, convergence to the Western intellectual is what Garton Ash
had advocated for the Central European dissident intellectual. Sadly, he was naive in
believing that the Central European intellectual would not be robbed of his political influence.
The balance of culture and politics is, therefore, not achieved. In the 1980s, the scales were
balanced, although the undermining of politics is perhaps a better description of their political
influence. In the 1990s, the balance tipped towards the political side. In the 2000s, the scale
tipped towards the cultural aspect.
As Garton Ash and Judt turn to the looking glass, their preferred attributes of the
intellectual are found in a mixture of the British, continental West European and Central
European intellectual. Influence, they both gather, is important. However, there are more
roads that lead to Rome in terms of accomplishing this influence. Both protagonists published
in different public spheres, which influenced their argument and effectiveness. They failed to
see that their own influence was, despite its indirect nature, not to be underestimated.
In an ideal world Garton Ash and Judt would see the scales in exact balance. They would see
their British intellectual infused with Central European drive, feistiness and perseverance and
with continental West European well-roundedness of knowledge and their former
participation to public debate. However, in Britain the time was just not ripe for it. Evidently,
Garton Ash acted in the British political system. However, his most valuable contribution lies
in the cultivating of the public debate to support Central Europe. Judt’s boost to the political
44
The Looking Glass World of British Intellectuals Timothy Garton Ash and Tony Judt
dialogue about Europe in Britain catapulted new input without much result. However, he did
share in the boost of a new public understanding of Europe.
The current Central Europe has to uphold and assert itself in the European Union. If
there are any lessons to be learned from history, it is that these states will fight for their rights.
As the European Union cuts away at their national identity, the generation of 1968 fights
again to keep the truth alive. For the Czechs this cutting into the national identity was nearly
imperceptible for they had a relatively incoherent identity to start with. However, for the
Poles, who looked towards the East for their roots, the change was noticeable. In 2009, Adam
Michnik was listed in the top 100 global thinkers of Foreign Policy, the same platform that
had recognised the contributions of Tony Judt, Garton Ash and Havel. Michnik was
mentioned because he had kept fighting the battle for living in ‘truth’. He might have been a
solitary soldier. Nonetheless, his listing indicates that there is a deeper layer to the
contemporary Central European debate. Culture, society and history reach deeper than
economics and political integration. However, in the number’s game that is the world today,
politics overrule the arguments of culture or history.
This study has traced the perspective of Timothy Garton Ash and Tony Judt of Central
Europe and its intellectuals from the early 1980s to the beginning of the twenty-first century.
It has shown the progress that has been made in Central Europe. Moreover, it has
demonstrated that the European Union today is anything but stable. The British, as well as the
Central European actors are not steady on their legs in the Union. Moreover, EUrope, in the
case of Britain, treads on eggshells, for it does not want to lose its powerful partner. Central
Europe, on the other hand, should be respected and given a more influential role. Further
studies should be conducted regarding the nature of the new relations between Britain, the
European Union and Central Europe. These studies should not focus on merely the political
side, they should penetrate the deeper layers of society, i.e. by examining the work of
intellectuals and following public debate in order to analyse the constant chain of action and
reaction in the political and cultural landscape.
Perhaps, after nearly ten years of inclusion in the European Union, it is time for the
intellectuals to reboot the cultural and historical dialogue. Their goals would mirror the aims
of the dissident intellectual in the 1980s: covertly they boost the political debate about the
position of the Central European states in the Union. Overtly, they would preach pure culture
and history. Thus, the intellectual finds himself again fighting for the national consciousness.
However, the new generation of intellectuals will be able to do so in a free world, since their
dissenting predecessors effectively procured their human rights of freedom in the 1980s.
45
The Looking Glass World of British Intellectuals Timothy Garton Ash and Tony Judt
Bibliography
Primary Sources:
Garton Ash, Timothy. 1989. The Uses of Adversity: Essays on the Fate of Central Europe.
Cambridge: Granta Books. Print.
---. 1990. We the People: The Revolution of ’89 witnessed in Warsaw, Budapest, Berlin and
Prague. Cambridge: Granta Books. Print.
---. 1999. History of the Present: Essays, Sketches and Dispatches from Europe in the 1990s.
Allan Lane The Penguin Press: London. Print.
---. 2012a. “The Crisis of Europe.” Foreign Affairs 91.5: pp. 2-15. Web. Accessed:14 January
2013
Judt, Tony. 1990a.“Czech Identity.” The Wilson Quarterly 14.3: p. 141. Web. Accessed: 23
January 2013.
---. 1990b. “The Rediscovery of Central Europe.” Daedalus 119.1: pp. 23-54. Web. Accessed:
24 January 2013.
---. 1992. “The Past is Another Country: Myth and Memory in Postwar Europe.” Daedalus
121.4: pp. 83-113. Accessed: 15 February 2013.
---. 1994. “Nineteen Eighty-Nine: The End of which European Era?” Daedalus 123.3: pp. 119. Web. Accessed: 24 January 2013.
---. 2005. Postwar: A History of Europe since 1945. New York: Penguin Press. Print.
---. 2010a. The Memory Chalet. New York: The Penguin Press, 2010. Print.
---. 2010b. “Edge People.” The New York Review of Books 57.5. Web. Accessed: 22 January
2013.
---. 2010c. “Revolutionaries.” The New York Review of Books 57.3. Web. Accessed: 22
January 2013.
---. 2010d. “Saved by Czech.” The New York Review of Books 57.4. Web. Accessed: 22
January 2013.
Judt, Tony, and Timothy Snyder. Thinking the Twentieth Century. London: William
Heinemann, 2012. Print.
46
The Looking Glass World of British Intellectuals Timothy Garton Ash and Tony Judt
Secondary Sources:
Andrukhovich, Yuri. 2004.“Me, the Mirror and I”. In: G. Snel, ed. Alter Ego: Twenty
Confronting Views on the European Experience /European Cultural Foundation.
Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Print.
Applebaum, Anne. 1994. “The Fall and Rise of the Communists: Guess who’s Running
Central Europe?” Foreign Affairs 73.6: pp. 7-13. Web. Accessed: 11 June 2013.
Arapovíc, Ademir. 2004. “Alter (the) Ego”. In: G. Snel, ed. Alter Ego: Twenty Confronting
Views on the European Experience /European Cultural Foundation. Amsterdam:
Amsterdam University Press. Print.
BBC Democracy Live. 2009. “30 October 1990: ‘No! No! No!’”. BBC Online 31 October
2009. Web. Accessed: 25 June 2013.
Bozóki, András. 2009. “Preparing for the Revolution: Hungarian Dissident Intellectuals
before 1989”. Baltic Worlds 2.1:pp. 40-46. Web. Accessed: 17 June 2013.
Cornis-Pope, Marcel & John Neubauer. 2004. History of the Literary Cultures of EastCentral Europe: Junctures and Disjunctures in the 19th and 20th Centuries. Volume 1.
Amsterdam: Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Print.
Czech Statistical Office. 2012. “Table 6.2. Population by Ethnicity and by Regions”. Czech
Statistical Office Online. Web. Accessed: 17 June 2013.
Dangerfield, Martin. 2008. “The Visegrád Group in the Expanded European Union: From
Preaccession to Postaccession Cooperation.” East European Politics and Societies 22:
pp. 630-667. Web. Accessed: 12 January 2013.
Dempsie, Peter. 2012. “Senior European Diplomat says Independent Scotland ‘Better for its
Citizens’”. YesScotland 23 December 2012. Web. Accessed: 24 June 2013.
Erlanger, Steven. 1999. “One Europe, 10 Years – Gloom in the Castle; Havel Finds his Role
Turning from Czech Hero to Has-Been”. The New York Times Online 4 November
1999. Web. Accessed: 19 June 2013.
"Euroscepticism | Euroskepticism, n.". OED Online. Oxford University Press.
<http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/26962927>. Web. Accessed: 2 March 2013.
Falk, Barbara J. 2011. “Resistance and Dissent in Central and Eastern Europe”. East
European Politics and Societies 25.2: pp. 318-360. Web. Accessed: 15 June 2013.
47
The Looking Glass World of British Intellectuals Timothy Garton Ash and Tony Judt
Fawn, Rick. 2008. “Visegrad, the study and the Celebration”. Europe-Asia Studies 60.4: pp.
677-688. Web. Accessed: 21 June 2013.
Fogteloo, Margreet & Annemieke Hendriks. 2012. “‘Havel kende geen rancune'; Tsjechië. De
dissidenten van Charta 77.” De Groene Amsterdammer 136.1: pp. 1-8. Web.
Accessed: 22 January 2013.
Foreign Policy. 2008. “The Top 100 Public Intellectuals –The Final Rankings”. Foreign
Policy 28 June 2008. Web. Accessed: 3 June 2013.
Garton Ash, Timothy. 1994. In Europe’s Name: Germany and the Divided Continent.
London: Vintage.
---. 2009. Facts are Subversive. New Haven: Yale UP. Print.
---. 2012b. Biography. Web. Available at:
<http://www.timothygartonash.com/biography.html>. Accessed: 27 March 2013.
Gross, Jan T. 1990. “Present at the Miracle”. The New York Times July 22 1990. Web.
Accessed: 16 June 2013.
Havel, Václav. 1978. “Power of the Powerless” in Václav. Open Letters: Selected Writings
1965-1990. (1992). New York: Vintage Books. Web. Accessed: 5 June 2013.
Hitchens, Christopher. 2008. “How to be a Public Intellectual”. Prospect 146 (May). Web.
Accessed: 29 April 2013.
Homans, Jennifer. 2012. “Tony Judt: A Final Victory”. The New York Review of Books
Online 22 March. Web. Accessed: 28 May 2013.
Johnson, Daniel. 2005. “British Intellectual Life Today”. New Criterion 24.1: pp. 9-15. Web.
Accessed: 29 April 2013.
Judt, Tony. 1993. “How the East was Won.” The New York Review of Books 41.21. Web.
Accessed: 24 January 2013.
---. 2007. “From Military Disaster to Moral High Ground”. The New York Times 7 October.
Web. Accessed: 22 June 2013.
Kaufman, Michael T. 1987. “Gorbachev alludes to Czech Invasion”. The New York Times 12
April 1987, n.p. Web. Accessed: 19 June 2013.
Konrád, György. 1985. “The Post-Yalta Debate”. World Policy Journal 2.3: pp. 451-466.
Interviewed by Richard Falk, and Mary Kaldor. Web. Accessed: 23 October 2012.
48
The Looking Glass World of British Intellectuals Timothy Garton Ash and Tony Judt
Kundera, Milan. 1984. “The Tragedy of Central Europe”. The New York Review of Books
31.7: pp.33-38. Web. Accessed: 22 October 2012.
Kuus, Merje. 2004. “Europe’s Eastern Expansion and the Reinscription of Otherness in EasCentral Europe”. Progress in Human Geography 28.4: pp. 472-489. Web. Accessed:
23 March 2013.
Luebering, J.E. 2007. “volta”. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online. Web. Accessed: 14 May
2013.
Maclennan, Robert. 2004. “Foreword”. In: G. Snel, ed. Alter Ego: Twenty Confronting Views
on the European Experience /European Cultural Foundation. Amsterdam: Amsterdam
University Press. Print.
Neuman, Stephanie. 2001. “For the Record”. American Foreign Policy Interests 23.5: pp.
213-334. Web. Accessed: 30 May 2013.
Neumann, Iver B. 2000. “Forgetting the Central Europe of the 1980s”. In: Lord, Christopher
(ed.). Central Europe: Core or Periphery? Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School
Press. Print.
Pasture, Patrick. 2011. “Laudatio voor professor Timothy Garton Ash”. Katholieke
Universiteit Leuven. 2 February. Web. Accessed: 28 May 2013.
Pick, Hella. 1990. “Margaret Thatcher greets Václav Havel”. The Guardian Newspapers
Unlimited 22 March. Web. Accessed 20 June 2013.
Rensen, Henk van. 2013. “Het Gordijn in ons Hoofd; Non-fictie / Anne Applebaum over
Oost-Europa”. Vrij Nederland 2 March 2013. Web. Accessed: 24 June 2013.
"Samizdat, n.". June 2013. OED Online. Oxford University Press. Web. Accessed: 15 June
2013. <http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/170390?redirectedFrom=samizdat>.
Seton-Watson, Hugh. 1975. The “Sick Heart” of Modern Europe: The Problem of the
Danubian Lands. Seattle, University of Washington Press. Print.
Snel, Guido. 2012. “Lingua Franca in Central Europe after the Disappearance of German”.
European Studies 29: pp. 235-252. Print.
Spiering, Menno. 2004. “British Euroscepticism”. European Studies: A Journal of European
Culture, History and Politics, 20.1: pp. 127-149. Web. Accessed: 12 April 2012.
49
The Looking Glass World of British Intellectuals Timothy Garton Ash and Tony Judt
The Sun. 1990. “Up Yours Delors!” The Sun. November 1, 1990. Web. Accessed: 18 May
2013.
Tode, Emil. 2004. Ego with Alter Ego. In: G. Snel, ed. Alter Ego: Twenty Confronting Views
on the European Experience /European Cultural Foundation. Amsterdam: Amsterdam
University Press. Print.
Todorova, Maria. 2000. “Isn’t Central Europe Dead?” In: Lord, Christopher (ed.). Central
Europe: Core or Periphery? Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press. Print.
Winn, Marie. 1987. “The Czechs’ Defiant Playwright”. The New York Times 25 October
1987. Web. Accessed: 16 June 2013.
50