The goal of this book is to compare the process of professionalization of high school (Gymnasium) teachers in Prussia (Germany) and Hungary (Austro-Hungarian Empire) during the second half of the 19th century. The work is a revised PhD Dissertation the author published in 2010 in Budapest.
The book consists of two short (introduction and summary) and four longer chapters. These latter ones discuss the following issues: concepts of professionalization of intellectuals (“értelmiség(i),” or “Bildungsbürger”); methods of historical comparison; teachers' professional associations; the main aspects of teachers' identity in the two countries; and finally their relationship to the state. This last chapter makes up more than two-fifth of the book. It is subdivided into three parts: one each dealing with Prussia and Austria-Hungary and a third, short chapter for the conclusion. The chapter describing Hungary is significantly stronger than the one dealing with Prussia. The difference is a result of two topics, the first, the recapitulation of the service regulation (szolgálati szabályzat), and the second the investigation of the law on high schools (Gymnasia).
The sociological basis for the concept of professionalization is Harald Wilensky's 1964 theory, published in the American Journal of Sociology, treated with the necessary critical approach, although the importance of secrecy as the counterpart of competence is not mentioned. The historical investigations of Hannes Siegrist is followed (24). This concept takes into account that throughout continental Europe the modern state had a much more important role in the life of the professions than in the Anglo-Saxon world. Concerning this investigation in the case of Hungary, the names of Maria M. Kovács, Erika Szívós, and András Vári are mentioned. The name of Zsombor Bódy (“La formation du groupe social des ‘magantisztviselö’ en Hongrie 1890–1930,” Genèses 42, 2001: 106–20) is brought up, but the classic essay of István Hajnal (“From Estates to Classes,” trans. János Bak, History & Society in Central Europe 2, 1994: 163–83) is not listed by the author. This is a pity, because a reflection of the findings of Bódy could have strengthened the argumentation of Keller.
The author states that the teachers' profession was dependent on the state; professional development started and went on along with the struggle (“Kampf”) between the state and church(es), the more or less centrally-organized religious denominations (71). The consequences, however, were different in the two countries. For several reasons the position of the churches in Hungary was stronger than in Prussia: “The separation of the teachers' careers from theological ones was initiated in both countries by the governments. … The secularization of the teachers' profession made progress by much bigger leaps in the Prussian territories than in Hungary” (250). In Prussia the so-called assessment of lectureship (“Lehramtsprüfung”) was introduced in 1810: “In Hungary, the assessment of lectureship was institutionalized much later (1883) and was not based that much on neo-humanistic principles” (253), compared to Prussia. This is why the desirable content of the professional pattern in Prussia resembled to that of the “Beamter” (civil servant), while in Hungary it was rather that of the “expert” (in the field of pedagogy). The same inclination to the pattern of the Prussian “Beamter,” as against the separate identity of the Hungarian “magántisztviselő,” was shown in the case of late 19th century white-collar workers by Zsombor Bódy. That might suggest that the process of professionalization was more differentiated in the Hungarian case than in the Prussian one but this proposition would not stand up to historical criticism. It was already István Hajnal who in 1943 in his aforementioned essay suggested that “[t]eachers, doctors, and engineers … these professionals—by definition liberal-rational in orientation—found their identity in an irrationally defined community: that of “gentlemen” (Hajnal, 178). It was not the level of education but the deficit in strength and differentiation of corporate life that made Hungarian professionalization weak.
In any case, this piece of comparative historical-sociological research is not only an important contribution to the understanding of Hungarian professionalization but also to the clarification of the differences between these continental patterns.
