With Teaching the Empire, Scott O. Moore emphasizes the processes of state affiliation and consciousness within the Habsburg Empire. Following recent research, the focus of the study lies on the formation of a “layered identity” to encourage state loyalty within the “Austrian lands” (1). Therefore, it puts the education system and the development of “patriotic” civic education as state-forming powers at the center of the analysis.
After a general introduction and a chapter about the development of the monarchy's school system, the study addresses in four chapters different fields of patriotic education and teaching. Based on (solely) German primary sources—such as history or geography textbooks, curricula, pedagogical journals, or school reports—it gives insights on how the Habsburg monarchy as a “composite state” dealt with its heterogeneity. Moore elaborates on symbols of dynastic representation, imperial “tropes” and the creation of a “mental map” of the empire (5). He further focuses on the involvement of schools and pupils in commemoration and celebration practices as well as on bureaucratic structures, when, for example, dealing with the appointment of teachers. Hence, education proves to be one of the key drivers for gaining loyalty to the Habsburg monarchy and a feeling of “patriotic” state affiliation.
In this respect, one main merit of the study is the constant effort to regard the education system not as separated field but related to the civil structures of the monarchy in general. Another valuable contribution of the approach is the contextualization within a European and global perspective. By comparing his findings about the Habsburg monarchy with civic education in France, Germany, Canada, or the United States, Moore provides a deeper understanding of the subject, underlining the prevailing notions about (national or imperial) identification and citizenship and stressing the differences as well as the similarities of the ideas present in nineteenth-century empires.
I agree with the general assertions of the study. However, at times elaborations needed to be more differentiated. In arguing that “Austrian identity was inclusive, rather than exclusive” (1) and that “Austria had to develop the patriotism of Germans just as they did the patriotism of its other nationalities” (3), the author underestimates the hegemonial position of German speakers in his interpretation of the sources. For example, when explaining that “all schools, regardless of language, were required to teach the literary canon of ‘the fatherland’” (40), the author neglects the fact that this “Austrian” literary canon was (nearly exclusively) one of German-language literature. As Moore notes, educators had to ensure “students were aware of Austrian poets and writers like Franz Grillparzer” (40); even in textbooks adapted for other languages and regions these had to be included. Although Moore clearly states that the study “looks specifically at German speaking schools to see how Austria's German population developed its national identity in the context of a supranational, Austrian identity” (2), when analyzing and interpreting the sources, the socioeconomic disparity needs to be addressed (notwithstanding other contemporary efforts to strengthen a “multinational Austrianness”).
At some points, the study even shows contradictions in argumentation. Moore mentions the relation of educational goals and different political ideologies but then does not consistently consider these assumptions for the contextualization of concrete examples. In chapter 3, the study brings up a description of a history lesson from the reformist and predominantly Social Democratic Viennese school association Freie Schule concerning the figure of Prince Eugene. Moore describes a sequence in which the teacher depicts Eugene of Savoy as an outstanding Austrian hero and then asks the students what makes an Austrian. “An Austrian is someone born in Austria”—because birthplace determines someone's fatherland—the class dutifully answers. Unexpectedly, the teacher in the example is unsatisfied with the explanation and defines “Austrianness” by the deeds for the country. “You can come into this world as an Englishman and die an Austrian,” is the conclusion (113).
This is a clear example of how actors of different political backgrounds used the same symbolic figures and claimed identification with the empire but referred to completely contrary lines of argumentation. Yet, Moore uses it as a reference on how Prince Eugene was generally portrayed as a model for patriotism in a multinational state. The discrepancy between a progressive (Social Democratic) and a “conventional” explanation is not mentioned here, which is surprising not only because of the content of the scene. A few pages before, Moore argues that pedagogues in “almost every pedagogical journal robustly supported Heimatkunde” (92) because “love of the Heimat was an integral part of moral and ethical education,” meaning that “without a proper love for one's birthplace, one could not sufficiently develop a sense of patriotism toward the Monarchy” (88). Only a Social Democratic paper, Die Freie Schule, opposed such an opinion—and thereby “remained in the distinct minority” (92).
Nevertheless, overall Teaching the Empire shows the wide range of education within civil society and its role in structuring a political entity. Even if at some points more precision would be desirable, Moore underlines the importance of state patriotism and its impact on the “composed” Habsburg monarchy.
