One of those is \u201cCulture and power\u201d, which seeks to answer how the mechanisms of pressure, influencing, and manipulation characterized the interaction between society and regime. We are especially focused on the activity of the communist state security. Here, the work of the researcher is much like an archeologist’s: the \u201cexcavation area\u201d is given, we can mostly identify the age and origin of the \u201cartifacts\u201d and after cleaning and arranging them, we can place them in the museum of, to use Hamvas’s phrase, \u201cexistence wrecking\u201d.<\/p>\n
We have also opened up new territory: \u201cSecurity research\u201d. The domain of security is in many aspects intertwined with and determined by cultural associations. Just think of \u201cstrategic culture\u201d as a key concept of security policy, one of the obstacles in the way of an ever more pressing intelligence cooperation. Or think of the lack of a common security culture, the intricate psychological background of terrorism, the renaissance of psychological warfare in our times, or the contrasting standpoints of security and privacy.<\/p>\n
The other one, \u201cHistory of thought\u201d, sets out to rediscover a tradition of thought marked by a productive amalgam of European and Hungarian identity, represented by works and authors who were surrounded by a wrongful conspiracy of silence for decades, including B\u00e9la Hamvas, Mikl\u00f3s Szentkuthy, Lajos Proh\u00e1szka, Ervin Baktay, and many others.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\u00c1gnes Hankiss<\/p>\n
Director of the Hamvas B\u00e9la Institute<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n