Page 29 [29]
OCR
“THE ‘ETERNAL CANDIDATE’ — THAT WAS ME”: INTERVIEW WITH KAROLY BARD K. B.: I cannot recall the precise chain of events anymore, but what is certain is that sociology had a great effect on my thinking. I read a lot of Simmel and Tonnies for example, and I spent a lot of time on Weber. However, I did not learn the precise methodology, this I regret now in retrospect. But the fact that I keep asking back, to check my train of thoughts, most probably comes from my training in sociology. What was clear to me, was that the Hungarian academic environment was quite narrow-minded. Naturally, there were notable exceptions, in my field for example, László Visky and Tibor Király. Should one open books on criminal law of that time, one would find that the authors repeatedly summarized the views of the different scholars and finally, without any explanation whatsoever, declared that they agreed with this or that school of thought. After reading three such books, one would think, right then, that is enough. I yearned for a more inquisitive approach, one that discussed the different ideas. Thankfully, I chanced on American and German critical criminology and interactionism, which drew me in. I had the huge advantage that my father had acquaintances who were willing to get me almost any book I needed to satisfy my scholarly interests. Then I tried to incorporate this new body of knowledge into the Hungarian science of criminal procedure. This was my sociology of justice’ period. During these years I doubtlessly acquired knowledge which could be considered exceptional in Hungary at the time. At the end of the day, perhaps the book’s success was down to the fact that it read well. It’s very important to me to write clearly and accurately. When I first started out, Tibor Király said, before you sit down to write, read some Kosztolányi. V. Z. K.: We know that the dissertation was well received, indeed, the academic committee recommended that it be published, but we also know that at the time, the political leadership was closely monitoring what scientific works are published and with what content. Did you receive some unsolicited advice’ before publishing the book? K. B.: Nobody tried to convince me to make substantive changes to the book for political reasons. Maybe I would have been proud even, if there had been something politically objectionable in the dissertation, but there wasn’t. Nobody wanted to cut or have me rewrite anything. Of course this does not mean that the system was completely liberal. Let me give you an example. Péter Kende, László Kéri and I (we were in the same year) were invited one time to participate in a discussion at the Institute of Social Sciences on show trials. Ihe discussion was organized because a disrict party secretary was accused of being too reform-minded. Before the discussion started, György Aczéls deputy summoned us and told us to pay attention to what was being said. By the way, the topic of my presentation was totally harmless. I just wanted to talk about the selection processes in the criminal procedure. The point is that following the + 27 «
