V roce 1966 byl vydán český překlad výboru z knihy Simone de Beauvoir Druhé pohlaví. Nad tímto vydáním se na stranách Literárních novin takřka okamžitě rozběhla debata, jejímiž účastníky byli kromě čtenářů Jan Patočka, Ivan Sviták, Irena Dubská a Helena Klímová. Článek se zabývá právě touto debatou, přičemž z předložené argumentace vyplývá, že se v ní objevily dva základní přístupy k otázce prosazování genderové rovnosti. Tyto přístupy bychom mohli zhruba definovat na základě protikladu „stejnost versus rozdílnost“. Článek zároveň zasazuje jednotlivé debatní příspěvky do dobového expertního diskurzu šedesátých let minulého století, zabývajícího se genderovou rovností ve vztahu k genderové politice socialistického státu, pro nějž byla genderová agenda jednou z jeho hlavních ideových opor., The article addresses the debate that took place on the pages of Literární noviny during 1967 and whose subject was the Czech translation of Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex (1966). The participants in the debate were Jan Patočka, Ivan Sviták, Irena Dubská and Helena Klímová. From the argumentation in the article we can see that two basic approaches to the advancement of gender equality emerge from the debate, which we could roughly define on the basis of the antithesis of “sameness versus difference”. At the same time, the article situates the individual contributions to the debate in the context of the specialist discourse of the 1960s that dealt with the issue of gender equality in relation to the gender policy of the socialist state, for whom the gender agenda was one of its main ideological pillars., and Gegenstand des Artikels ist die Debatte, die im Jahr 1967 im Literaturmagazin Literární noviny stattfand, und deren Thema die tschechische Übersetzung (1966) des Buchs Das andere Geschlecht von Simone de Beauvoir war. An der Debatte nahmen Jan Patočka, Ivan Sviták, Irena Dubská und Helena Klímová teil. Aus der Argumentation im vorliegenden Artikel ergeben sich für diese Debatte zwei grundlegende Ansätze zur Frage der Gendergleichstellung, die wir in etwa als Gegensatzpaar „Gleichheit – Unterschiedlichkeit“ definieren könnten. Im Artikel werden die einzelnen Beiträge zur Debatte gleichfalls in die Fachdiskussion der 60. Jahres des vergangenen Jahrhunderts in Bezug auf die Genderpolitik des sozialistischen Staates eingeordnet, für den die Gender-Agenda eine der wichtigen ideologischen Stützen war.
Simone de Beauvoir’s Th e Second Sex was translated into Czech in 1966, the fi rst translation of the book to be published in a socialist state. It was, like many other translations during this period, a compilation of selections and was edited by the phenomenologist Jan Patočka who, in his postscript, presented the work primarily within its philosophical context. Th e book, which was published in three editions within two years and reached a combined print run of almost one hundred thousand copies, reaped substantial acclaim both among the lay and the academic public. Th e main debate about the book unfolded in the magazines Literární noviny and Vlasta, in which the contributors aired their views on the book from various positions – as advocates of phenomenology, Marxism, and the women’s press.
Simone de Beauvoir’s Th e Second Sex was translated into Czech in 1966, the fi rst translation of the book to be published in a socialist state. It was, like many other translations during this period, a compilation of selections and was edited by the phenomenologist Jan Patočka who, in his postscript, presented the work primarily within its philosophical context. Th e book, which was published in three editions within two years and reached a combined print run of almost one hundred thousand copies, reaped substantial acclaim both among the lay and the academic public. Th e main debate about the book unfolded in the magazines Literární noviny and Vlasta, in which the contributors aired their views on the book from various positions – as advocates of phenomenology, Marxism, and the women’s press. In order to make the main arguments of the Czech debate on Th e Second Sex accessible to our readers, we are publishing here Ashley Davies’s English translation of the contributions by Jan Patočka, Ivan Sviták, and Irena Dubská.
This text analyses the construction of gender relations in the state-socialist societies, namely the former Czechoslovakia. Main source of findings about these relations are sociological interpretations of ''gender under communism'' written predominately for Western audiences after 1989. I propose several theoretical concepts suitable for understanding of the topic, including ''gender order'', ''patriarchy'', ''communist subject'' and ''social organization of masculinity''. On the basis of the texts mentioned above I distinguish between two important processes of the construction of state socialist gender order, which I call ''the unfinished project of women's emancipation'' and the ''changed public and private spheres''. Then I turn my attention to locating position of men in the state-socialist gender order. To understand the ''patriarchy of the state socialist type'' I find it useful to recognize several types of relations between different groups of men as included in Robert Connell's concept of ''social organization of masculinity'': hegemony, subordination, complicity and marginalization. I recognize subordination as the dominant form of masculinity in state-socialist society.
The article describes and analyses scientific and organizational activities of Otakar Nahodil at the Faculty of Arts, Charles University, within the wider context of Czech ethnography and folkloristics in the 1940-1960s. Based on the study of sources that have never been used for this theme to date and that originate in the management of the Faculty of Arts Charles University, the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia and various security forces, it was possible to trace the Nahodil´s way to the position of a probably most influential eminent authority in the ethnological science at that time, as well as his subsequent steep power fall. The study points to a lot of extraordinary problematic features of Nahodil´s research work and personality, which - within specific contexts of that period (ongoing marxization, or stalinization of scientific research and transformation in its themes, cleansing and settling of personal scores at the Faculty of Arts, Charles University, development of
the study of extra-European territories under the monitoring of intelligent services etc.) - strongly influenced the direction of Czech ethnology at that time.