Historians and political scientists have already begun to explore different aspects of modern Austria's political culture. But as Helmut Konrad has reminded us, this relatively new concept is loosely defined; he considers “political culture” to mean “the values held by individuals, groups, and society as a whole that affect the behavior of peoplewithin and in relation to the political system of a country.” Lucian Pye stresses the behavioral approach in political analysis to make “more explicit and systematic” our understanding of “such long-standingconcepts as political ideology, national ethos and spirit, national political psychology, and the fundamental values of a people.”

For Decades, Scholars have claimed that “culture” is one important factor in shaping political processes. Individuals and groups hold fundamental values and expectations that contribute to the maintenance or collapse of democracy, nationalism, fascism, communism, and other political systems. Recently, however, the argument has been extended considerably: political culture and ritual, it is now claimed, are not simply the colorful, attitudinal, sometimes manipulative icing on the cake of the real interests and power relations that move history. More fundamentally, “interests,” “power,” “sovereignty,” the “people,” the “nation,” “tradition,” and even the “state” are being studied as ideological devices with logics, rhetorics, and effects specific to particular historical contexts. Political processes operate through such categories, which are culturally constructed and only appear to be unproblematic and self-evident.

Far from being afield of the theme assigned to me by the editor and board of the AHY, Professor Susan Gal's erudite essay admirably complements my own efforts. By approaching the topic from the point of view of historical anthropology, she adds another dimension to the discussion of a difficult problem. Indeed, I learned a lot from her, and not only about fractals, segmentary lineage systems, nested oppositions, and recursivity, intricacies that she articulates much better than I could hope in the context of traditional historiography.

With little delay, Central European historical research experienced the growth of historical demography and family history that began in English-language historiography during the 1960s. Initial studies on Austria proper were published from the early 1970s onward; in Czechoslovakia the journal Historická demogmfie (Historical demography), acting as a forum for Czech research in this field, was founded in 1967, and also in Hungary, the 1970s mark the beginning of research into family history and historical demography.