Page - 132 - in Otto Bauer (1881–1938) - Thinker and Politician

132 chapter 4 assetsthantotheheritageofnaturaltraits.29Theheritageofculturalassets, for Bauer, is themost decisive factor for anation’s durability. Consequently, tra- dition,whose significanceBauer strongly accentuated, encapsulates the idea of the nation. The values passed down through cultural tradition define the nationalcharactertoagreatextent.Thisprocessoccursgradually.Thefirststep ischildhoodandyouth,theperiodinlifewhenhumansarethemostreceptive, yetalsothemostpassive.Thesecondstepisthematuringperiod:theindividual rejectscertainestablishedstandardsandhelpstointroducenewvalues.When discussing the inheritanceof cultural assets, Bauer touchedonan important matter:henoticedthatcertainelementsof intellectualcultureareeliminated throughtheprocess,whilenewelementsareborn.30 To return to thepre-eminenceof the communityof cultureover the com- munityofnature inBauer’s theoryof thenation, it shouldnotbeoverlooked that this contained threewholly different implications. The first implication is summarisedas follows: thatwhich isnon-material, intellectual, or spiritual determineswhatisnatural.Thesecondandthirdimplicationswerepolitically inclined: thesecond isbestunderstoodas theendeavour tosolveclassantag- onismsbyappealingtotheconceptofa ‘culturenation’ (Kulturnation),a term still used by the Social Democratic Party of Germany. The third implication wasanargument foraccepting thehegemonic statusof thecultural element. AccordingtoBauer,itsimpactshouldsetthelimitsofnationalsovereignty.The authorwas fullyconsciousof thethird implication;afterall,he intendedfora theoryof thenationthatwouldsolvethenationalitiesquestionintheAustro- HungarianEmpire.His theorywas palpable in the principle of national and cultural autonomy for all nations of the empire. It embodied the centrifugal andcentralistambitionsof themonarchy,aswellasofAustrianSocialDemo- cracy,whichalliedwiththemonarchyonthenationalitiesquestion. Bauer’scultural theoryof thenationwascastigated for itsabstractionfrom economicconditions. Thiswasunjustified insofar asBauer allowedplentyof room for the inclusion ofmaterial factors inmoulding national conscious- 29 One can find the same cultural approach to the national question in Schlesinger 1950, and inPoland inChałasiński 1966,Horwitz 1907, Luxemburg 1976,Niedziałkowski 1922, Ossowski 1967,Siwek1921,Wasilewski 1929andZnaniecki 1952. 30 It is difficult to concur with Przestalski’s statement that Bauer ‘ascribes considerable autonomyandindependenceofsocialrelationstothisidea,assumingthataspecificform of social consciousness, once established, becomespermanent, its continuedexistence securedonceandforall…What isbeingnegatedhere is thethesis thatconsciousness is sociallydetermined’ (our translation)–Przestalski 1981, p. 217. Bauer’s theory implieda diametricallyopposedsituation.