Heitlinger, Alena

English

Bohemia - Zeitschrift für Geschichte und Kultur der böhmischen Länder

Rákosník, Jakub/Šustrová, Radka: Rodina v zájmu státu. Populační růst a institucemanželství v českých zemích 1918-1989 [The Family in the Interest of the State.Population Growth and the Institution of Marriage in Czech Lands, 1918-1989].Nakladatelství Lidové noviny, Praha 2016, 281 pp. (Knižnice dějin a současnosti), ISBN 978-80-7422-378-5.All societies intervene in procreation, marriage and the family. The processes ofgiving (or not giving) birth and raising children are too important for societies toleave uncontrolled, though social controls do not always work. The social pro-cedures for controlling childbearing operate culturally (through the motherhoodmandate), ideologically (through discourses on nationalism and/or eugenics),psychologically (as aspirations and emotions at the personal level), economically(through market incentives and disincentives) and through the state. The majorinstruments at the disposal of the state are overlapping social, demographic, healthand economic policies based on legal-administrative and fiscal measures, such asprohibition and prosecution of induced abortions or various monetary and ‘in-kind’family assistance programs. In any complex modern nation state (such as Czecho-slovakia), there are hardly any measures which have defined the welfare state that donot bear at least indirectly on women (or parents), the family, and children. Thus anydiscussion about family and social welfare policies inevitably raises a whole series ofquestions about the relations between the state, the family, and the (gendered andracialized) individual. Limiting themselves to the contexts of modern Czech nation-state building, first as part of the newly independent democratic Czechoslovakiaduring the inter-war period, then as an occupied Nazi German Protectorate ofBohemia and Moravia and, finally, after a brief 3-year democratic interlude of post-World War II democracy, as a Czechoslovak communist party-state, the authors of Rodina v zájmu státu explore these questions in some detail, and exceedingly well.By focusing on population dynamics and the institution of the family as they re-late to the state, Rodina v zájmu státu is foremost a historical examination of thedevelopment of Czech social policy. Although enacted by quite different stateformations, policy similarities and continuities are much more striking than changesand ruptures. Moreover, the two authors also convincingly argue that one cannotexamine modern state and its social and family policies without simultaneouslyexploring the role of experts in the formulation, justification and implementation ofthese policies. To this end, the authors analyze numerous family and populationprofessional discourses and debates as they dominated the various historical periods.The specific areas of public policy examined include the family (e.g., the optimalconditions for marriage, prevention of divorce, support for single parent families,foster care, failure of birth control in the form of unwanted children); fertility andits enhancement or control (e.g., various pro-natalist family incentives, legal andhealth measures dealing with abortion, contraception and sterilization); lowering ofinfant mortality, largely through the medicalization of most aspects of childbearing(accomplished by the mid-1950s); suitability of children’s day nurseries; a variety ofissues connected with the (over)employment of women (e.g. protective legislation,Rezensionen 507feminization of certain economic sectors, equal pay and other issues in women’sequality); and the effectiveness of a family and demographic policy. The study makesit quite clear that the various experts – individual physicians, demographers, lawyers,economists, family counsellors and child psychologists – both reacted to existingtrends, and attempted to shape them, typically not simply as individual professionalsbut also as agents of the government machinery. Reacting to what were perceived asunfavorable demographic developments (e.g., high and growing divorce and abor-tion rates, coupled with low fertility in the 1960s), specific experts drawn fromdifferent areas of expertise and different institutions were recruited and incorporatedinto existing state structures (e.g., the Ministry of Health, the Statistical Office), ornewly created ones, such as the communist-era State Population Commission. Thebook also traces the move away from provision of various family services by charitable volunteer organizations to an exclusive provision by the communistparty-state. Rákosník and Šustrová also trace shifts in expert discourses on population sizeand population quality. Since excess of birth over deaths ultimately determines thesurvival of a given population and its economy, and since the Czechs form an eth-nically homogeneous small nation surrounded by a much larger German-speakingpopulation (significant numbers of whom as German-speaking minority and citizensof Czechoslovakia during the interwar years), it is hardly surprising to find a persis-tent linkage between the discourses of pronatalism and Czech nationalism. What ismore surprising is the continuous impact of eugenic thought on discourses on popu-lation, clearly evident in promotion of ‘biological responsibility’ of marital partnersto ensure healthy marriage and a healthy offspring or in a broader debate on popu-lation quality. While communist authorities openly rejected Nazi eugenic and racisttheories and practices, during the 1970s they somewhat reluctantly embraced a the-ory and practice of the need to improve population quality under the conditions ofan advanced state socialism. Concealed in internal party-state documents and direct-ives on the desirability of selective sterilization, which were sent from the central tothe local state authorities, such discourse was mainly aimed at non-conformist,delinquent parents, many of whom were ethnic Romas. We learn from the authorsthat in 1973 the implementation of the ‘population quality’ discourse went so far thatsocial workers prepared in advance a list of women, whose sterilization would be desirable.These women were then invited for consultation by a gynecologist who discussed the issuewith them, an approach the ministry regarded as ‘very useful.’ The ministry also commentedthat leaving the sterilization discussion solely in the hands of social workers did not reach thedesired result, due to an indifferent or hostile attitude of women’s doctors. (p. 184) Thus not all experts were on site and, more importantly, the policy was neverwidely implemented. To increase participation, women agreeing to be sterilized wereoffered a one-time stipend, which was almost as high as the childbirth grant, andwhich kept increasing in value as the 1970s and 1980s progressed. In December 1978,Charter 77 issued a document severely criticizing the practice of sterilizing Romawomen, on the grounds that agreement to be sterilized was often involuntary or reached though strong pressure. The practice of sterilization of Roma women wasBohemia Band 56 (2016)508abandoned shortly after the collapse of communism, but “the question of out-of-court settlement has not been resolved to this day.” (p. 185). The authors also provide a lot of useful information on the period of NaziGerman Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. While I applaud the inclusion of thisperiod as an integral part of social policy history of Czechoslovakia, I question thedecision to put a photograph of a Nazi official holding a child on the front cover ofthe book. Is this the best representation of 70 years of Czech social policy history?The authors provide throughout the text numerous reproductions of family-themedposters or magazine photographs from the various historical periods examined, soanother photograph could have been easily chosen. But this is a small quibble. Thebook is well written, easy to read (without any tables or population graphs) and assuch should be of interest to specialists and lay persons alike.Peterborough/Ont. Alena HeitlingerMrňka, Jaromír: Svéhlavá periferie. Každodennost diktatury KSČ na příkladuŠumperska a Zábřežska v letech 1945-1960 [Die eigensinnige Peripherie. Der Alltagder KSČ-Diktatur am Beispiel der Bezirke Šumperk und Zábřeh 1945-1960].Ústav pro studium totalitních režimů, Praha 2015, 216 S., ISBN 978-80-87912-34-8.Jaromír Mrňka unternimmt mit der „eigensinnigen Peripherie“ den Versuch, zweiwichtige Themenfelder zusammenzubringen: das tschechische Grenzland zwischenAus- und Neubesiedlung, das von der Forschung relativ gut erschlossen ist, und diekommunistische Machtdurchsetzung und Regimestabilisierung, über die wir weit-aus weniger wissen. Für diese Zeit wurde in Tschechien bislang vorwiegendZentrumsgeschichte geschrieben. Wie die zentralen Pläne und Direktiven fernab vonPrag ankamen und von den lokalen Akteuren interpretiert und umgesetzt wurden,ist nur vereinzelt – etwa in den Studien von Matěj Spurný und Václav Kaška – unter-sucht worden.1 Mrňkas Versuchsanordnung ist umso ehrgeiziger, als er die ereignis-und konfliktreiche Periode zwischen 1945 und 1960, also zwischen Kriegsende, derkommunistische Machtübernahme von 1948 und dem offiziellen Abschluss des sozi-alistischen Aufbaus, vergleichend in den Blick nimmt. Mit den Bezirken Zábřeh(Hohenstadt an der March) und Šumperk (Mährisch Schönberg) unweit der Grenzezu Polen hat er Fallbeispiele ausgewählt, die sich in dem zentralen Punkt der Aus-und Neuansiedlungsquote unterscheiden. Während Šumperk nach 1945 einen weit-gehenden Bevölkerungsaustausch erlebte, hatte Zábřeh eine großenteils tschechischeBewohnerschaft, die sogenannten Altsiedler. Es geht bei Mrňka einerseits um die großen Transformationsprozesse, die die ethnische, soziale, politische und Besitzstruktur der Tschechoslowakei grundlegendverändern sollten – das heißt um Zwangsmigration und Zuwanderung, EnteignungRezensionen 5091 Spurný, Matěj: Nejsou jako my. Česká společnost a menšiny v pohraničí (1945-1960) [Siesind nicht wie wir. Die tschechische Gesellschaft und die Minderheiten im Grenzland(1945-1960)]. Praha 2011. – Kaška, Václav: Neukáznění a neangažovaní. Disciplinace členůKomunistické strany Československa v letech 1948-1952 [Undiszipliniert und nicht enga-giert. Disziplinierung der Mitglieder der Kommunistischen Partei der Tschechoslowakei inden Jahren 1948-1952]. Praha, Brno 2014.

"Rodina v zájmu státu. Populační růst a instituce manželství v českých zemích 1918-1989 [The Family in the Interest of the State. Population Growth and the Institution of Marriage in Czech Lands, 1918-1989]"

https://www.bohemia-online.de/index.php/bohemia/article/download/8040/12361

"Rodina v zájmu státu. Populační růst a instituce manželství v českých zemích 1918-1989 [The Family in the Interest of the State. Population Growth and the Institution of Marriage in Czech Lands, 1918-1989]"

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Bohemia - Zeitschrift für Geschichte und Kultur der böhmischen Länder