Page - 134 - in Universities in Imperial Austria, 1848–1918 - A Social History of a Multilingual Space

134 ♦  Universities in Imperial Austria, 1848–1918 innovations rarely resulted in systemic change, for two reasons. In the first place, institutional innovation was inhibited at smaller German-language universities, which had to follow the capital city. Second, as the flow of information between universities with different languages weakened, the possibility of specialization and disciplinary innovation did not result in a financial burden because other universities did not demand the same concessions. To put it more theoretically, while “Austrian” universities conformed to the center-periphery models of Michel Foucault, Galician universities and the Czech University in Prague followed the model of Yuri (Juri) M. Lotman.185 Innovation at the “Lotmanian peripheries” was more common but had no repercussions in the center and hardly translated into systemic innovation. The predominance of a norm-making center, here Vienna, inhib- ited innovation in the Foucauldian peripheries, that is, those that continued to be closely supervised. For political reasons, this differentiation took place after centralized power had deteriorated and universities became parts of new networks, in- tensifying especially after 1918. Foucauldian peripheries were deprived of influence. For instance, Chernivtsi University (Universitatea Regele Carol II din Cernăuţi) in Romania was subordinated to the University of Bucharest (Universitatea din București); the German University in Prague, after de- fending its move to Liberec/Reichenberg, not only gradually lost importance but also switched its orientation from Vienna to Berlin. In contrast, Lotmanian peripheries were able after 1918 to become cen- tral without undergoing serious internal change. The Czech University in Prague was the only university on which the “Czechoslovak” model could be based, and thus it had no competition. In the process of creating universi- ties in Poland, the Habsburg model was chosen from among several models of academic education (e.g., with regard to disciplines, academic grades, organization of universities, and their relations with the state), although not without serious opposition.186 While the issue of disciplinary differentiation was a question of power, it was only one of the spatial issues of Cisleithanian universities. This should not, however, be taken as suggesting that the universities were pulling in all directions and the ministry was the only common denominator. To conclude this brief overview of the changes in the liberal period, I want to turn to those issues in which common space was most manifest: legal initiatives.