We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 May 2019
Over recent years, there has been a growing academic interest in the history of psychological disciplines and mental health in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe. This article explores psychological sciences and social planning in post-Stalinist Hungary after 1956. The focus is on the psychology of work as a socially- and historically-situated discourse. The article demonstrates how psychologists started to promote their expertise to reform the practices of management and to “humanize” the conditions of work. They suggested practical remedies for everyday problems of worker motivation and social adjustment and introduced concepts from social psychology to improve the state of interpersonal relations at the workplace. The study argues that the workplace was a particular context in which a post-Stalinist reassessment of the government's ideology was acted out. To elaborate this more fully, both published texts and archival materials are analyzed in the framework of the governmentality thesis, as developed by Nikolas Rose. In this context, the concept of the “human factor” crystallized different but reconcilable interests between psychology experts and party politicians.
1. Raikhel, Eugene & Bemme, Dörte, “Postsocialism, the Psy-ences and Mental Health,” in Psychiatry in Eastern Europe, a special issue of Transcultural Psychiatry 53, no. 2 (April 2016): 151-75Google ScholarPubMed; cf. Turda, Marius, “History of Medicine in Eastern Europe, including Russia,” in Jackson, Mark, ed., The Oxford Handbook of the History of Medicine (Oxford, 2011), 208–24Google Scholar.
2. Cohen, Susanne, “Humanizing Soviet Communication: Social-Psychological Training in the Late Socialist Period,” Slavic Review 74, no. 3 (Fall 2015): 439–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zajicek, Benjamin, “Banning the Soviet Lobotomy: Psychiatry, Ethics, and Professional Politics during Late Stalinism,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 91, no. 1 (Spring 2017): 33–61CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.
3. Marks, Sarah, “Ecology, Humanism and Mental Health in Communist Czechoslovakia,” in Savelli, Mat and Marks, Sarah, eds., Psychiatry in Communist Europe (Basingstoke, 2015), 134–52Google Scholar; Mat Savelli, “Blame George Harrison: Drug Use and Psychiatry in Communist Yugoslavia,” in Psychiatry in Communist Europe, 180–195; Savelli, Mat, “‘Peace and happiness await us’: Psychotherapy in Yugoslavia, 1945–85,” History of the Human Sciences 31, no. 4 (2018): 38–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
4. See, for example: Lūse, Agita, “From Social Pathologies to Individual Psyches: Psychiatry Navigating Socio-Political Currents in 20th Century Latvia,” History of Psychiatry 22, no. 1 (March 2011): 20–39CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Antić, Ana, “Heroes and Hysterics: ‘Partisan Hysteria’ and Communist State-Building in Yugoslavia after 1945,” Social History of Medicine 27, no. 2 (May 2014): 349–71CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Tuomas Laine-Frigren, Searching for the Human Factor: Psychology, Power and Ideology in Hungary during the Early Kádár Period (Jyväskylä, 2016) available at https://jyx.jyu.fi/dspace/handle/123456789/48507 (last accessed January 7, 2019); Melinda Kovai, Lélektan és politika: Pszichotudományok a magyarországi államszocializmusban 1945–1970 (Budapest, 2016).
5. Oosterhuis, Harry, “Mental Health, Citizenship, and the Memory of World War II in the Netherlands (1945–1985),” History of Psychiatry 25, no. 1 (March 2014): 20–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Eghigian, Greg, “Care and Control in a Communist State: The Place of Politics in East German Psychiatry,” in Gijswijt-Hofstra, Marijke, Oosterhuis, Harry, Vijselaar, Joost, and Freeman, Hugh, eds., Psychiatric Cultures Compared. Psychiatry and Mental Health Care in the Twentieth Century: Comparisons and Approaches (Amsterdam, 2005), 183–99Google Scholar; Damousi, Joy and Plotkin, Mariano Ben, eds., Psychoanalysis and Politics: Histories of Psychoanalysis under Conditions of Restricted Political Freedom (New York, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Laurenson, Helen and Swartz, Sally, “The Professionalization of Psychology within the Apartheid State 1948–1978,” History of Psychology 14, no. 3 (August 2011): 249–63CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Rose, Nikolas, Governing the Soul: Shaping of the Private Self (London, 1999)Google Scholar.
6. Eghigian, Greg, Killen, Andreas, and Leuenberger, Christine, “Introduction: The Self as Project: Politics and the Human Sciences in the Twentieth Century,” in The Self as Project: Politics and the Human Sciences, a special issue of Osiris 22, no. 1 (2007): 1–25Google Scholar.
7. See, for example Mészáros, Judit, “Progress and Persecution in the Psychoanalytic Heartland: Anti-Semitism, Communism and the Fate of Hungarian Psychoanalysis,” Psychoanalytic Dialogues: The International Journal of Relational Perspectives 20, no. 5 (October 2010), 600–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On Mérei's life and work, see Borgos, Anna, Litván, György & Erős, Ferenc, eds., Mérei élet-mű: Tanulmányok (Budapest, 2006)Google Scholar. See also Laine-Frigren, Searching for the Human Factor, 288–95.
8. Bartha, Eszter, “Bridging Historical Periods: A Selection from the Writings of Gyula Rézler,” Corvinus Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 3, no. 2 (2012), 107–12Google Scholar.
9. The psychotechnic approach to workers’ mental and physical efficiency dominated the regional scene before the WWII. See Hoskovec, Jirí, “Czech Republic,” in Baker, David B., ed., The Oxford Handbook of the History of Psychology: Global Perspectives (Oxford, 2012), 141–42Google Scholar; Paulík, Karel, “The History of the Psychology of Work and Organization in Czech and Slovak Industry,” European Psychologist 9, no. 3 (2004): 171–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kiss, György, “Révész Géza és Erdélyi Mihály: Két Fejezet a Német-Magyar Kapcsolatok történetéböl a pszichológiában,” Magyar Pszichológiai Szemle 54, no. 2 (1999), 150–52Google Scholar.
10. Pléh, Csaba, A lélektan története (Budapest, 2010), 542–43Google Scholar; Imre Knausz, “A magyar ‘pedológia’ pere—1948–1950,” in Mérei élet-mű, 161–80. For more on Soviet trials against childhood studies and psychological tests at the end of the 1930s, see Joravsky, David, Russian Psychology: a Critical History (Cambridge, Mass., 1989), 345–53Google Scholar. See also Etkind, Alexander, Eros of the Impossible: The History of Psychoanalysis in Russia (Boulder, CO., 1997), 259–85Google Scholar.
11. Szabó, Márton, Diszkurzív térben: Tanulmányok a politika nyelvéről és a politikai tudásról (Budapest, 1998), 44–45Google Scholar; Pittaway, Mark, The Workers’ State: Industrial Labor and The Making of Socialist Hungary, 1944–1958 (Pittsburg, 2012), 230–70Google Scholar.
12. See Varga, László, Az elhagyott tömeg, 1950–1956 (Budapest, 1994), 50, 61–62Google Scholar; Tóth, Eszter Zsófia, “‘Ennyi idő egy férjből is elég, hát még egy gyárból’—A gyári identitás munkásnők és munkások életút-elbeszéléseiben,” Múltunk 48, no. 3 (2003), 78Google Scholar. The case of the psychiatrist Pál Santha at the turn of the 1950s illustrates the constraints posed by the environment. Santha expressed critical opinions about Stakhanovism by arguing that it put the human personality under a lot of psychological strain. He even went so far as to say that the competitive spirit it encouraged was actually unhealthy and wrong. This was because Santha had encountered a Stakhanovite woman in his clinic suffering from a unilateral paralysis. He drew the conclusion that this woman had been exposed to a work situation she could not cope with, and as a result had shown hysteric symptoms because sickness seemed the only possible route of escape. This of course did not sit kindly with the authorities and, as Santha had already talked openly about other issues too, he was forced out of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and his professorship terminated in 1951. See Bákonyi, Péter, Téboly, Terápia, Stigma (Budapest, 1983), 84–85Google Scholar.
13. See Békés, Csaba, Byrne, Malcolm & Rainer, János, eds., The 1956 Revolution: A History in Documents (Budapest, 2002), 191–216, 211Google Scholar. For more on workers’ councils, see Pittaway, The Workers’ State, 205–52.
14. Haney, Lynne A., Inventing the Needy: Gender and the Politics of Welfare in Hungary (Berkeley, 2002), 99–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Haney importantly challenges the commonly-held view that the Kádár regime withdrew from the private life of its citizens. Namely, she argues that Hungarian welfare state policies actually became closely allied with professional forms of expertise (e.g., psychology) from the 1960s onwards. As a result, new paternalist forms of control and intervention in families were introduced and in the process, women in particular became the targets of “control and care.” See also Horváth, Sándor, Két emelet boldogság: Mindennapi szociálpolitika Budapesten a Kádár-korban (Budapest, 2012), 21–29Google Scholar.
15. For a critical view, see: Brock, Adrian C., “Psychology and Liberal Democracy: A Spurious Connection?,” in Brock, Adrian C., ed., Internationalizing the History of Psychology (New York, 2006), 152–62Google Scholar.
16. Rose, Nikolas, Inventing Our Selves: Psychology, Power, and Personhood (Cambridge, Eng., 1996), 101–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
17. Rose, Governing the Soul, 56–59.
18. Koppes, Laura L., ed., Historical Perspectives in Industrial and Organizational Psychology (New York, 2007)Google Scholar, esp. chapters 3 and 4; Sandrine Kott, “The Social Engineering Project. Exportation of Capitalist Management Culture to Eastern Europe (1950–1980),” in Christian, Michel, Kott, Sandrine & Matejka, Ondrej, eds., Planning in Cold War Europe: Competition, Cooperation, Circulations (1950s–1970s) (Berlin, 2018), 123–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sarah Marks, “Ecology, Humanism and Mental Health,” 138; Vítězslav Sommer. “Managing Socialist Industrialism: Czechoslovak Management Studies in the 1960s and 1970s, in Planning in Cold War Europe, 237–59; Mazurek, Małgorzata, ”Between Sociology and Ideology. Perception of Work and Sociologist Advisors in Communist Poland, 1956–1970,” Revue d'histoire en sciences humaines 16, no. 1 (2007): 11–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
19. Marks, “Ecology, Humanism and Mental Health Marks,” 138.
20. Alejandro Dagfal, “Psychoanalysis in Argentina under Peronism and Anti-Peronism (1943–1963),” in Psychoanalysis and Politics, 135–36.
21. Révész, Sándor, Aczél és korunk (Budapest, 1997), 82–86Google Scholar.
22. It is significant that the basic academic institutions for psychology were set up either during or immediately after the political purges related to the revolution of 1956. After carefully constructed investigations, certain psychologists were also put on trial and convicted in April 1959 for political crimes presumed to have been committed after the Soviet invasion. Social psychologist Ferenc Mérei (1909–1986) was perhaps the best known of these. They were deemed dangerous and labelled by the secret police as either “nationalists,” “revisionists,” or “national communists.” See Rainer, János M., Ötvenhat után (Budapest, 2003), 76Google Scholar; Gál, Éva, Lejáratás és bomlasztás. Tudósok, tanárok a titkosrendőrség látókörében (Budapest, 2013), 17–127Google Scholar; On political and ideological control after 1956, see: Péteri, György, “Tisztogatás és patronálás: Kádár ellenforradalma és a közgazdaságtudományi kutatások Magyarországon, 1957–1958,” Aetas 21, no. 1 (2006): 186–210Google Scholar.
23. Szokolszky, Agnes, “Hungarian Psychology in Context: Reclaiming the Past,” Hungarian Studies 30, no. 1 (2016), 21–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kovai, Lélektan és politika, 324–34; Eghigian, Greg, “The Psychologization of the Socialist Self: East German Forensic Psychology and its Deviants, 1945–1975,” German History 22, no.2 (April 2004): 181–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hoskovec, “Czech Republic,” 143.
24. See, for example, Standeisky, Éva, “Bomlás. A hatalom és a kulturális elít,” in Rainer, János M., ed., Hatvanas évek Magyarországon: tanulmányok (Budapest, 2004), 272–317Google Scholar.
25. On totalitarian narrative and its critique, see: Falk, Barbara J., “Resistance and Dissent in Central and Eastern Europe: an Emerging Historiography,” East European Politics and Societies 25, no. 2 (2011), 320–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Yurchak, Alexei, Everything Was Forever, Until It Was No More: The Last Soviet Generation (Princeton, 2006), 4–6Google Scholar. Cf. Peter Miller and Nikolas Rose, Governing the Present: Administering Economic, Social and Personal Life (Cambridge, Eng., 2008), 32.
26. Csizmadia, Ervin, A Magyar Demokratikus Ellenzék (1968–1988). Monográfia (Budapest, 1995), 17–37Google Scholar; Révész, Aczél és Korunk, 99–101.
27. György Majtényi, “Az értelmezés hatalma és a hatalom értelmezése. Az 1945 utáni társadalomtörténet fogalmi nyelvéről,” Korall - Társadalomtörténeti folyóirat 19–20 (2005), 39–40.
28. Horváth, Zsolt K. and Orbán, Katalin, “The Metapolitics of Reality: Documentary Film, Social Science Research and Cognitive Realism in Twentieth Century Hungary,” The Hungarian Historical Review 3, no. 2 (2014): 312–36Google Scholar.
29. Csizmadia, Ervin, Diskurzus és Diktatúra: a magyar értelmiség vitái Nyugat-Európáról a késő Kádár-rendszerben (Budapest, 2001), 112–13Google Scholar.
30. Attila Becskeházi, “Szociológia és Társadalomdiskurzus,” in Attila Becskeházi, Györgyi Várnai and Tibor Kuczi, eds., Valósag ’70 (Budapest, 1992), 115–16.
31. Bockman, Johanna, Markets in the Name of Socialism: The Left-Wing Origins of Neoliberalism (Stanford, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Péteri, György, “Purge and Patronage: Kádár's Counter-revolution and the Field of Economic Research in Hungary, 1957–1958,” Contemporary European History 11, vol. 1 (February 2002): 125–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
32. Germuska, Pál, “‘De hát eszerint a szocializmus bedobhatja a törülközőt’: Második gazdaság a Kádár-korszakban,” in Germuska, Pál & Rainer, Janos M., eds., Közelítések a Kádárizmushoz (Budapest, 2008), 71Google Scholar.
33. I thank my reviewer for raising up this question.
34. Molnár, Imre, “A munkalélektan mai feladatai,” Magyar Pszichológiai Szemle 17, no. 1 (1960), 30–32Google Scholar.
35. Frederick Winslow Taylor, the “father” of scientific management, was characterized by Molnár as representing redundant and inhumane western forms of knowledge, although he must have been well aware of the great impact of Taylorism in the early Soviet Union. See, for example, Hughes, Thomas P., American Genesis: A Century of Invention and Technological Enthusiasm, 1870–1970 (New York, 1989), 256–58Google Scholar.
36. Molnár, “A munkalélektan mai feladatai,” 32–34.
37. Keller, Márkus, “A gyár és a munkás. A Május 1. Ruhagyár munkástanácsa 1956–1957-ben,” in Évkönyv 8 (2000), 274Google Scholar.
38. Mazurek, “Between Sociology and Ideology,” 15–16.
39. For a critical view on Mayo's research, see Bruce, Kyle & Nyland, Chris, “Elton Mayo and the Deification of Human Relations,” Organization Studies 32, no. 3 (2011): 383–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Bruce and Nyland argue that the Human Relations school was essentially an ”undemocratic” response to the demand from organized labor that workers should be given a more active role in management decision making. See also Rose, Governing the Soul, 96–98.
40. Bartha, Eszter, Alienating Labour: Workers on the Road from Socialism to Capitalism in East Germany and Hungary (New York, 2013), 5–6Google Scholar.
41. HU-MNL-MK-S Társadalomtudományi intézet 904 f./2 cs./56 ő.e. (Üzemszociológiai jellegű vizsgálat a Lenin Kohászati Művekben, 1965).
42. HU-MNL-MK-S 288 f. 904 /Agitáció és Propaganda Osztály. Társadalomtudományi intézet. 2 cs./56 ő.e. (Rövid áttekintés a munkásosztály helyzetével kapcsolatos üzemi pszichológiai vizsgálatokról, 26).
43. HU-MNL MK-S Társadalomtudományi intézet 904 f./2 cs./56 ő.e. (Üzemszociológiai Vizsgálat a Diósgyőri Gépgyárban, 1964).
44. György Kerekes, personal interview, Budapest, April 14, 2012.
45. See Pittaway, Mark, “The Reproduction of Hierarchy: Skill, Working-Class Culture, and the State in Early Socialist Hungary,” The Journal of Modern History 74, no. 4 (2002), 760, 764CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
46. HU-MNL-MKS. MSZMP Agitáció és Propaganda Osztály. 904 f. /12 cs. /72 ő.e. (“Vita a munkáról” az Élet és Irodalom című irodalmi és politikai hetilapban).
47. See biography available at http://mek.oszk.hu/01900/01937/html/szerviz/kislex/biograf/kerigyor.htm (last accessed January 7, 2019).
48. HU-MNL-MKS. MSZMP Agitáció és Propaganda Osztály. 904 f. /12 cs. /72 ő.e. (“Vita a munkáról” az Élet és Irodalom című irodalmi és politikai hetilapban), 21–22.
49. HU-MNL-MKS. MSZMP 904 f. /12 cs. /72 ő.e, 22.
50. Ibid., 23–25.
51. Ibid., 26.
52. Ibid., 7–8.
53. Andrzej Czechowicz, HU OSA 300–8-3–4574, Radio Free Europe (RFE), “Training of Management Cadres in Poland: Summary.” Eastern Europe: Background reports and situation rep., December 14, 1965, p. 7. [Electronic Record], http://hdl.handle.net/10891/osa:df24b7d2-078b-403b-b8d9-125d448fa5e1 (last accessed 19 February 2019). See also Mazurek, “Between Sociology and Ideology,” 15–16.
54. Gyáni, Gábor, “A forradalom társadalomtörténeti paradoxonjai,” Forrás 36, no. 10 (2006), 33–34Google Scholar.
55. Swain, Nigel, Hungary: Rise and Fall of Feasible Socialism (London, 1992), 171Google Scholar.
56. Lampland, Martha, The Object of Labor: Commodification in Socialist Hungary (Chicago, 1995), 216Google Scholar.
57. Valuch, Tibor, “Csepel bicikli, Caesar konyak, Symphonia, Trapper farmer. A fogyasztás és a fogyasztói magatartás változásai a szocialista korszakban,” Múltunk 53, no. 3 (2008): 44Google Scholar.
58. István Kemény, “Szabad vállalkozók országa,” Magyar Füzetek 6 (Paris, 1980), 94.
59. Valuch, Tibor, Magyarország társadalomtörténete: A XX. század második felében (Budapest, 2005), 357–59Google Scholar.
60. Haney, Inventing the Needy, 94; Gough, Roger, A Good Comrade: János Kádár, Communism, and Hungary (London, 2006), 54Google Scholar.
61. See, for example, Rókusfalvy, Pál, “A Fluktuáció mint munkapszichológiai probléma,” Gazdaság- és jogtudomány 4, no. 3–4 (1970): 326–32Google Scholar; Gelléri, Péter, ”Személyiség-lélektani tényezők szerepe a gyakran munkahelyet változtatók magatartásában,” in Gazdaság- és jogtudomány 4, no. 3–4 (1970): 367–72Google Scholar; Engländer, Tibor and Bánkutiné, Éva Csoór, eds., Üzempszichológia: válogatott tanulmányok (Budapest, 1974)Google Scholar.
62. HU-MNL MK-S 288 f. 904, 2 cs./56 ő.e., 22–23.
63. HU-MNL MK-S 288 f. 5/395 ő.e. Jegyzőkönyv a Politikai Bizottság 1966. Május 10-én tartott üléséről, 2. Előterjesztés a vállalatok vezetőinek tovább képzésére—Az új gazdaságirányítási rendszer követelményeiből fakadóan, 2.
64. HU-MNL MK-S 288 f., MSZMP Központi Bizottsága Agitációs és Propaganda Bizottságának (APB) iratai. Jegyzőkönyv 1966. augusztus 3-i üléséről, 1.
65. HU-MNL MK-S 288 f., MSZMP Központi Bizottsága Agitációs és Propaganda Bizottságának (APB) iratai. Jegyzőkönyv 1966. augusztus 3-i üléséről. Javaslat a KB Agitációs és Propaganda Bizottság részére a gazdasági vezetők továbbképzésének alapjául szolgáló tematikára, 8.
66. HU-MNL M-KS 228 f. 904/2 állag/39 ő.e /1967/Társadalomtudományi intézet. Feljegyzés Lakos Elvtárs részére. Megjegyzések a “Vezetési, szervezési ismeretek” c. előadássorozat programjához.
67. For example, in 1967 a Hungarian delegation returning from the GDR reported on the introduction of a “human factor” in the way work was now being planned there. The delegation was convinced that East German achievements in the field of management education were promising, and they suggested that Hungarians should also take heed. See HU-MNL MK-S 288 f., MSZMP Központi Bizottsága Agitációs és Propaganda Osztályának (APO) iratai. 1967, 20. őe. Jelentés az NDK-ban járt pártküldöttség útjáról.
68. “The 24th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Tasks of Soviet Psychology, Soviet Psychology 10, vol.4 (summer 1972), 324–25.”
69. Riska-Campbell, Leena, Bridging East and West: The Establishment of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in the United States Foreign Policy of Bridge Building, 1964–1972 (Helsinki, 2011), 29–89Google Scholar.
70. These exports probably had an ideological and political subtext of promoting western methods in order to undermine socialist institutions. However, this article is not the place for that discussion. See Kott, “The Social Engineering Project,” 137.
71. Czechowicz, “Training of Management Cadres in Poland,” 14.
72. ILO had also been instrumental in getting six-month scholarships for 43 Polish experts, which permitted them to study the art of modern management in the west.
73. Bálint, István & Murányi, Mihály, Munkalélektan műszaki és gazdasági vezetők részére (Budapest, 1973), 1–20Google Scholar. Indeed, there was a real need for management books in Hungarian. As noted by Sandrine Kott, between 1969 and 1971, 1,454 individuals in Hungary attended the courses offered by the Management Centre in Budapest, see Kott, “The Social Engineering Project,” 136.
74. HU-MNL-MK-S 288 f. 904, 2 cs./56 ő.e, 26, 33. According to the report, there were 500 large state enterprises in the country. At the turn of the ’70s, there were psychological laboratories in only 30 of them.
75. Ibid, 3–4, 27, 33. Testifying to the “atomized” nature of work, in 25 of these laboratories psychologists worked alone.
76. Zsille, Zoltán, “Pszichológia az iparban (Riport és tanmese)” Valóság 14, no. 7 (1971), 45Google Scholar.
77. HU-MNL-MK-S 288 f. 904, 2 cs./56 ő.e, 2–4.
78. Ibid., 3.
79. Ibid., 6–8. Only the cases of silicosis and lead poisoning had really decreased in number.
80. Hunyady, György, Pataki, Ferenc & Szilágyi, Ibolya Váriné, eds., Szociálpszichológiai kutatások Magyarországon (Budapest, 1976)Google Scholar.
81. Social psychologist Ferenc Mérei was a pioneer of social psychology and socially oriented (társas) child psychology, but his professional activities extended also to clinical psychology, psychodrama and the psychology of art. He also had a background in communist politics and infighting after the war, culminating in a prison sentence and academic marginalization in 1959.
82. Ferenc Pataki, personal interview, Budapest, September 27, 2013.
83. Sándor Erdősi, “A vezetés néhány szociálpszichológiai feltételének vizsgálati módszere egy vidéki nagyvállalatnál,” in Szociálpszichológiai kutatások Magyarországon, 147–156.
84. Ferenc Mérei, Közösségek rejtett hálózata: a szociometriai értelmezés (Budapest, 1971), 5.
85. István Fehér, “A demokratikus vezetés pszichológiai elemei,” in Szociálpszichológiai kutatások Magyarországon, 218–28.
86. See, for example, “Fourth Congress of the Psychological Society of the USSR,” Soviet Psychology 10, no. 4 (1972), 398–99Google Scholar.
87. McLeod, Poppy Lauretta and Kettner-Polley, Richard, “Psychodynamic Perspectives on Small Groups,” in Poole, Marshall Scott and Hollingshead, Andrea B., eds., Theories of Small Groups: Interdisciplinary Perspectives (Thousand Oaks, CA., 2005), 72–77Google Scholar; Rose, Governing the Soul, 100–2.
88. Miklós Kun was oriented towards social psychiatry at the Lipotmező Hospital in Budapest. The “marathon session” was first tested out by a “methodological committee” at the Iron and Steel Workers’ Sports Club in the Angyalföld workers’ district. In this therapy session, group members included a sports school director, teachers, coaches, and assistant coaches.
89. Fehér, “A demokratikus vezetés,” 218.
90. Ibid.
91. Ibid.
92. Ibid., 221.
93. Ibid.
94. Ibid., 223.
95. Reference group referred to the group of people by which the individuals measured and evaluated their own behavior and thinking; and Fehér noted that the participants were actually starting to think “what would I do, if I were they?”
96. Fehér, “A demokratikus vezetés,” 223.
97. Ibid.
98. Ibid., 225.
99. Ibid., 227.
100. János László, personal interview, Budapest, April 19, 2012. Cf. János Füredi & Ferenc Szakács, “Csoportos pszichoterápia kettős vezetésével,” Orvosi Hetilap, November 16, 1969; Hidas, György & Szőnyi, Gábor, “A Pszichoterápiás Hétvégekről és a nagycsoport-ról (Hozzászólás Szerdahelyi Szabolcs dr. vitacikkéhez,” Magyar Pszichológiai Szemle 34, no. 3 (1977): 285–89Google Scholar.
101. Cohen, Susanne, Communicating Change in a Transforming State: Globalization and the Politics of Office Communication in Urban Russia (Ann Arbor, 2010), 180–81Google Scholar. T-groups, often in remote locations, flourished in the US especially from the 50s to 70s. Carl Rogers himself argued that they were a radical invention. As the group demanded emotional honesty from its members, they were often forcefully encouraged to tear down all “masks.”
102. Ibid., 183.
103. Ibid., 178.
104. Tóth, Eszter Zsófia “‘Mindenki . . . úgy ment oda, hogy ez a világcsúcs’ (Munkásnő ország-gyűlési képviselők megéléstörténetei a szocialista időszakról),” Aetas 22, no. 2 (2007), 59Google Scholar. For a sharply critical analysis of “piece-work” in Hungarian factories, see Haraszti, Miklós, A Worker in a Workers’ State (New York, 1977)Google Scholar.
105. Mérei, Közösségek rejtett hálózata, 5. Mérei's book is also remembered for its symbolic value to his followers at the time. Indeed, using the word “hidden” in the title implied the legitimacy of small social circles, which were presumably not being controlled by the regime.
106. Ibid., 204.
107. Rose, Inventing Our Selves, 136–40.
108. See also the psychological guidebook for the managers by Bálint & Murányi, 296–97. The authors enumerate over two dozen personality features suitable for a leader, such as enthusiasm, entrepreneurship, ambition, originality, ability to overcome obstacles, and self-control, but also friendliness, politeness, sense of humor, knowledge of human nature, and “phlegmatic blood temperature” (cool-headedness).
109. See Laine-Frigren, Searching for the Human Factor, 254–94.
110. See also Pléh, Csaba, History and Theories of the Mind (Budapest, 2008), 190Google Scholar.
111. Lindenberger, Thomas, “Creating State Socialist Governance: The Case of the Deutsche Volkspolizei,” in Jarausch, Konrad H., ed., Dictatorship as Experience: Towards a Socio-Cultural History of the GDR (New York, 1999), 139Google Scholar.
112. Ferenc Erős, “Élmény és hálózat. Mérei Ferenc a Magyar szociálpszichológia történetében,” in Mérei Élet-mű, 146–47.
