Page - 129 - in Otto Bauer (1881–1938) - Thinker and Politician

the national question 129 all social relations,21 Bauer made it the central concept of his sociological observations.22Heemphasised: ‘Thenationisnotasumofindividuals; rather, eachindividualistheproductofthenation;thefactthattheyarealltheproduct of the same societymakes themacommunity’.23 The essenceof community is that the individualswhosustain it are tied togetherbypsychological social bonds.Drawingattentionto the importanceofpsychological socialbonds for the existence of social structures, Bauer, like Adler before him, accentuated their formal elements.With reference toAdler’s category of ‘socialisedman’, heassumedthetranscendentalexistenceofsocialbonds.That is tosay, social bondsarenotforgedasamereresultofinterpersonalrelationships,butappear onlywiththeapriorisocialisationofindividualconsciousness,whichinsocial life unifies subjects in all their diversity. In this sense, the existenceof social bondsinvolvestheontological,transcendentaluniformityofthesubject-world. FollowingAdler’s critical theoryof consciousness, Bauerdefined the society- nationasadistinctphenomenonofsocialisedman.Theexistenceofthenation, heargued,couldnotbeexplainedwithreferencetotheoutwardformofhuman nature or, as conceived of by Rudolf Stammler, by appealing to an external law. Bauer adopted a transcendental interpretation instead. Accordingly, he criticised the individualistic theories,particularly theatomisticmodel,which defined the society-nation as a collection of individuals linked by a net of community on the former and that of society on the latter regulation. Pawlak summed upTönnies’sdistinctionas follows: ‘Thecommunity ismadeupof individualsequipped withanatural, spontaneouswill (Wesenswille),whileasocietyconsistsofmemberswho possessapurposeful, rationalwill (Kürwille). Inthecommunity,peoplearetiedtogether emotionally – their mutual relations are benevolent, harmonious, based on tradition and religion.Acommunity fully engulfs thepersonalityof eachmember. In society, the basis forco-operation is individual interest, agreement,calculation,publicopinion’ (our translation) – Pawlak 1979, p. 85. Bauer voiced reservations that hewould attribute an alternativemeaning to these categories. Nonetheless, his convictions overlappedwith thoseofTönnies.Hisdifferences canbeputdowntoa transcendental interpretationof socialbonds.Finally,Bauerdidnotemploytheconceptofcommunityconsistently.When differentiating between nation and class, for instance, he used the term ‘community’ to epitomise the nation and the term ‘society’ tomean social class. In spite of this, he frequentlyunderstoodtheclassasacommunityand its social institutionalisation inthe formoftradeunionsandpoliticalpartiesassociety.CompareMozetič1987,p.223. 21 Bauer1996,p. 111. 22 Toprovetheconsistencyofhistheoreticalandmethodologicalrevelations,heassociated thiswithtwocategories,althoughheoftenusedtheminterchangeably:societyandnation. It isworthnotingthatthetwoconceptsarenotsynonymousinsociological literature. 23 Bauer1996,p. 110.