- Bucharest, Bucuresti, Romania
L’écrivain roumain Paul Goma (1935-2020), né en Bessarabie, dans la Grande Roumanie, et réfugié de guerre à l’âge de 8 ans et demi dans une Roumanie réduite, a eu un parcours biographique et littéraire particulier. Sa nature, toujours en... more
L’écrivain roumain Paul Goma (1935-2020), né en Bessarabie, dans la Grande Roumanie, et réfugié de guerre à l’âge de 8 ans et demi dans une Roumanie réduite, a eu un parcours biographique et littéraire particulier. Sa nature, toujours en contradiction avec les autorités, l’a mis déjà au lycée en conflit avec la Securitate (principale institution répressive du régime communiste), puis pendant ses études, où il sera même fait prisonnier politique. L’apparition du roman Ostinato en Occident, en 1971, conduit à une rupture irréconciliable avec le régime communiste, qui culmine en 1977 avec l’organisation du Mouvement pour les droits de l’homme et l’asile politique en France.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Gheorghe Gheorghiu, who later became Gheorghiu-Dej, can be considered a person whose destiny could become exceptional only after important moments of historical turmoil. Coming from a poor workers' family, Gheorghiu-Dej was... more
Gheorghe Gheorghiu, who later became Gheorghiu-Dej, can be considered a person whose destiny could become exceptional only after important moments of historical turmoil. Coming from a poor workers' family, Gheorghiu-Dej was brought into prominence as a result of the huge global shift produced by the Second World War. During the interval 1945-1965 he has played an increasingly important political role and his activity is one of the favourite subjects for several historical studies. Having the advantage of a rich historical literature, as well as the access to primary sources 1 , in the present study we set to grasp the way in which Gheorghiu-Dej understood and then conceived Romania's eastern neighbourhood and, obviously, the relation with the Soviet Union in the interval 23 August 1944 – March 1965 (until the end of his life). Our scientific undertaking is neither repetitive nor a synthesis of the several edited or archive sources; instead, we are using a new interpretation grid of some facts which are, for the most part, already known. The method we propose does not aim at a simple narration of diplomatic history, but it attempts to analyze Romania's foreign policy in the interval 1945-1965 from the perspective of Gheorghiu-Dej's power interests. The main hypothesis of our research is that Gheorghiu-Dej conceived Romania's relation with the Soviet Union not as a distinct political process, with separate rules from the national political life, but as an instrument for increasing his personal power. Thus, we break, of course, with the classical explanations of the realist school (dominated by the idea of competition between impersonal forces), and bringing into discussion psychological-historical elements, with their advantage of including the individual into the core of historical explanation. The general rule under which we operate is the diachronic exposure of the study's subject, along three subtopics: ideological definition of neighbourhood; geopolitical aspects of the relation with the Soviet Union; diplomatic activity elements determined by Romania's neighbourhood with the " big neighbour " from the East.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Gheorghe Gheorghiu, who later became Gheorghiu-Dej, can be considered a person whose destiny could become exceptional only after important moments of historical turmoil. Coming from a poor workers' family, Gheorghiu-Dej was brought into... more
Gheorghe Gheorghiu, who later became Gheorghiu-Dej, can be considered a person whose destiny could become exceptional only after important moments of historical turmoil. Coming from a poor workers' family, Gheorghiu-Dej was brought into prominence as a result of the huge global shift produced by the Second World War. During the interval 1945-1965 he has played an increasingly important political role and his activity is one of the favourite subjects for several historical studies. Having the advantage of a rich historical literature, as well as the access to primary sources 1 , in the present study we set to grasp the way in which Gheorghiu-Dej understood and then conceived Romania's eastern neighbourhood and, obviously, the relation with the Soviet Union in the interval 23 August 1944 – March 1965 (until the end of his life). Our scientific undertaking is neither repetitive nor a synthesis of the several edited or archive sources; instead, we are using a new interpretation grid of some facts which are, for the most part, already known. The method we propose does not aim at a simple narration of diplomatic history, but it attempts to analyze Romania's foreign policy in the interval 1945-1965 from the perspective of Gheorghiu-Dej's power interests. The main hypothesis of our research is that Gheorghiu-Dej conceived Romania's relation with the Soviet Union not as a distinct political process, with separate rules from the national political life, but as an instrument for increasing his personal power. Thus, we break, of course, with the classical explanations of the realist school (dominated by the idea of competition between impersonal forces), and bringing into discussion psychological-historical elements, with their advantage of including the individual into the core of historical explanation. The general rule under which we operate is the diachronic exposure of the study's subject, along three subtopics: ideological definition of neighbourhood; geopolitical aspects of the relation with the Soviet Union; diplomatic activity elements determined by Romania's neighbourhood with the " big neighbour " from the East.
Research Interests:
The research aims to answer the question "How does historiography influence the formation of social memory of a community?" The case study aims to analyze democratic memory in Romania after 1989. The research follows two stages. First, we... more
The research aims to answer the question "How does historiography influence the formation of social memory of a community?" The case study aims to analyze democratic memory in Romania after 1989. The research follows two stages. First, we analyze the main features of the historiography of the communist regime: dominant ideology (anticommunism), thematic structure, dominant stylistic features, inventory and estimation of its dissemination and circulation. Second, we study the evolution of public sentiment towards the communist regime in Romania using information provided by surveys of public opinion in relation to the socio-demographic characteristics of the population. The main conclusion of the research is that historiography is a product of elite, which has only minimal effects on social memory. " Meseria de istoric " , pentru a utiliza expresia consacrată a lui Marc Bloch 2 , obligă la reflecţia periodică şi sistematică asupra relaţiei istoricului cu societatea căreia i se adresează. Probabil, chiar şi cei mai sceptici dintre istorici nutresc speranţa că îndemnul lui Cicero – Historia magistra vitae – este urmat de cât mai mulţi oameni, istoria dobândind astfel o funcţie socială pragmatică explicită. Desigur, după fiecare moment tragic din istoria umanităţii, istoricii constată, dezabuzaţi, că oamenii, deşi ar fi avut posibilitatea, nu au învăţat din " lecţiile " trecutului, păstrând însă speranţa că generaţiile viitoare nu vor repeta erorile trecutului. Scepticii cred că există un proces sistematic de învăţare societală eşuată, deoarece numeroase tragedii din istoria umanităţii puteau fi evitate dacă oamenii ar fi ţinut seama de erorile trecutului. Desigur, optimiştii pot argumenta că alte tragedii au fost evitate tocmai pentru că, uneori, oamenii au ţinut seama de ceea ce istoricii numesc uneori cu plăcere autoadmirativă " lecţiile trecutului. " Pluralitatea opiniilor privind relaţiile care se stabilesc între Istorie şi istoriografie evidenţiază