Seite - 336 - in Österreich-Ungarns imperiale Herausforderungen - Nationalismen und Rivalitäten im Habsburgerreich um 1900

© 2020, V&R unipress GmbH, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783847110606 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737010603 the intention to face the challenge of strengtheningminority nationalmove- ments; and (3) the reorganization of the titular nation at the local level as an ethnicminority.Whilesomeof theaspectsof thesemodelswerecommonorat least similar, theywerestilldistinctvarieties,andoffereddifferentsolutions for thesamequestion:howtopromoteandrepresent localandregional interests in an increasingly unitarianist and nationalizing multi-ethnic state against the backdropofunevendevelopmentandnationalmobilization? TheHungarian ‘Empire’ and itsperipheriesaround1900 Thedefinitionofanempire–asaspecific,distinguishableformofstatehood–is justascontestedasmostconcepts thatattempttogeneralizephenomenaonthe basis of oftendiverse, and sometimesdisparate cases. For a long time, empire either constituteda colonial empire ruled fromametropolitan center, or ady- nasticconglomerateofstates,provinces,kingdomsandcitiesaccumulatedbya lineageof rulersonthebasisof awidevarietyof entitlements to the respective units. Therefore, colonial empires of modern European states were easy to juxtaposewith the ailingdynastic, continental ones.Recent sociologicalworks and historiography, however, emphasizes that despite all of their differences, both types of empires represented a common, distinct formof statehood, one that was based ondifferentiated rule fromametropolitan center over diverse territories, all of which constituted a periphery in its relation to this center, whatever itspositionvis-a-vis theothercomponentunitswas.10 Differentiatedrulewasbasednotsolelyuponthe legalstatutesof thepartsof the empires, but also on the active cooperation of local and regional elites. Essential for the establishmentof imperial order, their knowledgeof local cul- ture, habits, customs, and laws was indispensable for the rulers. Thus, these social groupsgainedagency to impact thenature,means, andaimsof imperial rule(andtheagencytoimpactthecenteritself)aswellasthechancetonegotiate theirpositionswithintheimperialstructures.11Empiresalsofrequentlyreliedon imperial figures, certainpersonalities,whoseknowledge– technological, polit- ical, academic, et cetera andwhosemobility enabled them tomove across the oftenvast imperial spaceandconnectpartsof theempire,while facilitating the 10 JaneBurbank/FrederickCooper, Empire inWorldHistory. Power and thePoliticsofDiffe- rence,Princeton2010,p. 8,16–17;CharlesMeier,EmpiresorNations?1918,1945,1989, in: CarlLevy/MarkRoseman,ThreePostwarEras inComparison.WesternEurope1918, 1945, 1989,Ashgate2002,p. 41–67, esp.p. 46–47. 11 Hirschhausen,NewImperialHistory? (seenote1),p. 730–734. GáborEgry336