European Review of History: Revue européenne d'histoire ISSN: 1350-7486 (Print) 1469-8293 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cerh20 The agrarian working class put somewhat centre stage: an often neglected group of workers in the historiography of labour in state-socialist Hungary Susan Zimmermann To cite this article: Susan Zimmermann (2018) The agrarian working class put somewhat centre stage: an often neglected group of workers in the historiography of labour in state- socialist Hungary, European Review of History: Revue européenne d'histoire, 25:1, 79-100, DOI: 10.1080/13507486.2017.1374926 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13507486.2017.1374926 © 2017 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published online: 19 Dec 2017. Submit your article to this journal View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cerh20 Download by: [CEU Library] Date: 21 December 2017, At: 00:38 EuropEan rEviEw of History: rEvuE EuropéEnnE d'HistoirE, 2018 voL. 25, no. 1, 79–100 https://doi.org/10.1080/13507486.2017.1374926 The agrarian working class put somewhat centre stage: an often neglected group of workers in the historiography of labour in state-socialist Hungary Susan Zimmermanna,b,c adepartment of History, Central European university, Budapest, Hungary; bdepartment of Gender studies, Central European university, Budapest, Hungary; Cdepartment of Economic and social History (affiliated reader), university of vienna, vienna, austria 7 1 0 ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY 2 r This study discusses a body of scholarship which is little-known received 26 november 2016 be internationally, written in Hungary in the period between 1949 and accepted 29 august 2017 m 1989: the historiography on agrarian labour from the eighteenth century e KEYWORDS c to the Second World War. This historiography was conceptually inclusive e agrarian labour to 1945; 21 D itnh et hvaatr iiet de xtpyploerse do ft hlaeb hoiustro irny wofh micha ntyh egyr owueprse oifn vaoglrvaerida,n i nwcolurdkeinrsg, gHluonbgaal rlayb; roeugri ohnisatlo ry; 8 long-term contracts, day and servant labour, seasonal migration and historiography; state 3 0: non-agricultural forms of labour, the role of agrarian labour in socio- socialism ] at 0 esococinaolismmic’. Tdheisv heliostpomrioegnrta, pahnyd f otrh ae laprogleit ipcaarl t mreomvaeimneedn te mofb e‘adgdreadri ainn y three adjacent research clusters: peasant studies, local and regional r a r history, and the history of the labour movement. This study argues b Li that scholarly approaches and interests, and institutional framings U specific to each of these clusters, were of key importance in generating E the extensive scholarship that is reviewed. The fact that Hungary had C [ been a dominantly agrarian country before 1945, the Leninist vision of y b the ‘alliance of the workers and the peasants’ that was to bring about d socialism in Eastern Europe and the state-condoned interest in the e d history of the labour movement and labour more generally were other a nlo important factors conducive to, and to various degrees putting their w stamp on, this research. Given its findings within a Marxian or classical Do social-history framing, and its focus on an often neglected group of workers, the historiography on agrarian labour written in state-socialist Hungary deserves to be integrated into the historiographical canon. This study discusses this scholarship against the backdrop of present-day global labour history. In pointing to some of its area-, time- and context- specific characteristics, the study aims to contribute to a global dialogue in labour history that is sensitive to and critically appreciative of different historiographical trajectories and traditions across world regions. In the Stormy Corner Between 13 and 15 March and March 1971, a number of high-profile events involving some of the crème de la crème of the Hungarian historians’ craft took place in the town of CONTACT susan Zimmermann [email protected] © 2017 the author(s). published by informa uK Limited, trading as taylor & francis Group. this is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons attribution-nonCommercial-noderivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. 80 S . ZIMMERMANN Békéscsaba in southeastern Hungary and in Budapest. On 13 March the first festive event was held in Békéscsaba, commemorating the centennial of András L. Áchim’s birth. Áchim, a medium-level land owner (his family originally owned 77 hectares), born in Békéscsaba in 1871, had been the leader of two subsequent peasant parties demanding radical land reform in the early twentieth century, as well as the founder of the Association of Smallholders, Agrarian Workers and Pick and Shovel Men (the so-called kubikosok or ‘cubics’) which in 1908 was instrumental in bringing together a large peasant congress in Békéscsaba.1 Now, a century after Áchim’s birth, a memorial plaque, intended to remember the location of Áchim’s former house, was unveiled. Ferenc Pölöskei, eminent historian and editor, as well as one of 10 authors of a two-volume work published in 1962, The Movements of Agrarian Workers and Poor Peasants in Hungary 1848 to 1948,2 gave the speech at the unveiling ceremony. The next day, 14 March, Géza Féja, doyen of the village sociography movement of the interwar period and author of the famous book Stormy Corner: Soil and People of the Lower Tisza Region published in 1937,3 gave the celebratory speech at another festive 7 gathering held in Békéscsaba. The speaker who had opened this meeting did not fail to 1 0 2 underline that it had been the ‘long row of agrarian-socialist movements’ which, with their r be beginnings in the early 1890s, ‘had prepared for the appearance of András Áchim’. In the m e audience were leading party, trade-union and government figures, as well as the Directors of c De the Institute for Party History of the Hungarian Socialist Workers’ Party and the Institute for 1 the Historical Sciences of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Henrik Vass and Zsigmond 2 8 Pál Pach. Last but not least, on 12 and 15 March, an ‘academic sitting’ was held in Budapest 3 0: and Békéscsaba with Aladár Mód, life-long Communist and leading Marxist theoretician, 0 at giving the chairman’s résumé.4 ] y Békéscsaba, the capital city of one of those Hungarian counties which were labelled r a br Stormy Corner, had been one of the strongholds of the ‘agrarian socialist movements’ and Li U violent social conflict surrounding them during the later decades of the Monarchy. The E region continued to be a centre of agrarian misery and eruptive social conflict throughout C y [ the interwar period. b d Ten years after the Békéscsaba festivities, the historians’ crowd would once again travel to e d the heart of the Stormy Corner, this time to Orosháza. In 1981, a two-day ‘academic meeting’ a o nl was held here on the occasion of the 90th anniversary of the ‘bloody First May’ 1891 of w Orosháza, a date symbolizing the beginning of the age of ‘agricultural workers’ socialism’ o D in Hungary. Before 1914, the town of Orosháza, then a giant village with more than 20,000 inhabitants, had been at the centre of dynamic, export-oriented agro-capitalism. The 1981 conference held in this symbolic place was entirely dedicated to the history of ‘Agrarian Socialism in Hungary’. In his ‘summary remarks’ Péter Hanák, a leading Hungarian histo- rian for decades before the systemic change and up until his death in 1997, presented – in preparation for the centenary of agrarian socialism in 1991 – a detailed programme for the further study of this historical phenomenon.5 Up until the present day, the term Stormy Corner, which is said to have been invented by Géza Féja for his 1937 sociography, is used in the Hungarian language to refer to the particular region in southeastern Hungary which under state socialism repeatedly attracted so many historians. EUROPEAN REVIEW OF HISTORY: REVUE EUROPÉENNE D'HISTOIRE 81 Beyond the Stormy Corner The particular motivation and setting for the high-profile events in the Stormy Corner in 1971 and 1981 at first glance seem to confirm some of the persevering stereotypes about labour history under state socialism, namely its close nexus with party and state politics, its narrow focus on the history of the labour movement, and the teleological construction of the history of the labour movement as directly and imperturbably leading from the social-democratic forerunners to the Communist workers’ parties of the twentieth cen- tury. However, the high-profile interest in labour conflict in the agrarian as opposed to the industrial sphere epitomized by the 1971 and 1981 events is remarkable if it is compared to the dominant international trends in the historiography of the labour movement and its institutional backings at the time, which tended to focus on the industrial sphere.6 In addition, this interest in agrarian labour conflict formed part of a much larger body of schol- arship, which is not well known internationally, written in Hungary in the period between 7 1949 and 1989 on the history of agrarian labour from the eighteenth century to the Second 1 0 World War. This study discusses the concepts and findings of this scholarship against the 2 r backdrop of present-day global labour history. In pointing to some of the area-, time- and e b m context-specific characteristics of this scholarship, it aims to contribute to a global dialogue e c in labour history that is sensitive to and critically appreciative of different historiographical e D 1 trajectories and traditions across world regions. 8 2 The historiography on agrarian labour reviewed in this contribution was to a large extent 3 0: produced within and published at the core of the historical profession. It was, in other words, 0 at associated with key institutions, journals and historians, or at least formed part of the pro- ] fessional canon. The large-scale opening of the archives after 1945, alongside the explicit y r a promotion of research in the modern, capitalist epoch, which key institutions regarded as r b Li an important means of generating support for the systemic change after 1945,7 certainly U played an important role in preparing the ground for a new history of agrarian labour. The E C historians at the core of the profession and involved in the study of agrarian labour often [ by referred to a parallel large body of scholarship, folklore and ethnographic studies, which, d e it was argued, used important alternative sources and were complementary to their own d oa work. Even more systematically, the historiography on agrarian labour under state socialism wnl appropriated the tradition of the village sociography which had peaked in Hungary in the o D 1930s, and was pro-actively kept alive yet not pursued further in any substance during state socialism.8 An early important reprint was Géza Féja’s Stormy Corner in 1957, mentioned above. Translated into many languages and well-known even in the Western world is Gyula Illyés’ documentary novel People of the Puszta, first published in 1936, reprinted several times in Hungary and regularly taught in Hungarian schools under state socialism. In this contribution, I will argue, first, that the scholarship on agrarian labour written by historians in Hungary under state socialism paid due attention to some of those phenomena which have played a key role in the international debates around the ‘new global labour history’ of our days. This new history pursues an inclusive agenda when exploring the his- tory of labour, and aims to no longer conceptually or empirically privilege the history of labour in the early and ‘successfully’ industrializing world regions such as Western Europe or the United States of America. The historical development and relationship of free and unfree as well as paid and unpaid labour, workers’ informal political activities as opposed to their formal organization, the labour of families and households rather than individual 82 S . ZIMMERMANN workers alone, the combination by individual workers and households of different types of labour and so on, have formed key preoccupations of this historiography.9 Hungarian historiography on agrarian labour written under state socialism – while certainly only partly compatible with concepts driving the new global labour history – uncovers and describes a myriad of related phenomena systematically and in rich detail. It does so in an often highly empiricist fashion, embellishing and bolstering the resulting narrative with reference to specific patterns of capitalist development in Hungary or to debates on divergent forms of capitalist development in Europe. With reference to these framings, this historiography can also be read as a relevant contribution from a particular geographical area to a more global and more inclusive type of labour history. Second, I will argue that a number of particular factors pertaining to the history of Hungarian historiography have contributed to what could be labelled a lack of visibility of the historiography of agrarian labour, even though it formed part of the historiographical canon. This lack of visibility at the time did not simply follow from the fact that certain traditional 7 narrow Marxist notions of labour history have tended to regard peasants as backward and 1 0 2 not (fully) contributing to the class struggle. Rather, I argue, this lack of immediate visibility r be of the historiography on agrarian labour discussed here was rooted in the fact that it did not m e emerge as a clearly defined research field in its own right. To a large extent, this scholarship c De remained embedded in three adjacent research clusters. I have not been able to identify any 1 single book or series of books and articles which in one way or another would point to the 2 8 history of agrarian labour in capitalist Hungary as its overarching thematic focus within 3 0: its title. At the same time, I found three large clusters of publications which have generated 0 at abounding knowledge on the history of agrarian labour. First, there are those publications ] ry which were directly driven or stimulated by the sacrosanct interest in the labour move- a br ment in general and agrarian socialism in particular. These publications often combined Li U or expanded on this interest so as to create knowledge on the social history and the living E and labour conditions of the agrarian population involved. Second, publications belonging C y [ to the professional and well-received genre of local, county or regional history, which lived b d a separate life institutionally, produced important knowledge on the history of agrarian e d labour. Third, I found a clearly defined and politically approved-of interest in the history of a o nl the peasantry or the peasant question very broadly conceived, and a related extensive cluster w of publications which addressed in great detail the history of agrarian labour. Publications o D on Hungarian economic history could be said to form a fourth cluster contributing to the knowledge production on the history of agrarian labour at the core of the historians’ pro- fession. However I leave these writings aside here, since they are of less relevance when read against the backdrop of the research interests informing the new labour history of our days. In the following sections I introduce and discuss – in reverse order – the contribution to the historiography of agrarian labour in the period between 1848 and 1945 as traceable in each of these three adjacent research clusters and relevant for the new European and global history of our days. All of these publications are based on extensive original research. In addition, in many cases, they built on (other) detailed case studies focusing on specific elements of local histories and other original historiography, on scholarly publications pub- lished before 1945, on interviews, memoirs and so on. In turn, many of these publications were followed by and in some cases triggered further studies on local aspects and various detailed questions. In the concluding section, I shall reflect on the relationship between my findings on the three clusters of studies and the present condition and prospects of labour EUROPEAN REVIEW OF HISTORY: REVUE EUROPÉENNE D'HISTOIRE 83 history, and try to make a case for re-evaluating and integrating Hungarian historiography on agrarian labour written under state socialism into the new global labour history. Specialists in Marxist historiography and/or Eastern Europe might be tempted to explain away the interest of Hungarian historiography under state socialism in agrarian labour via reference to the particular Eastern European and Leninist variety of socialism as to be built on or rooted in the ‘alliance of workers and peasants’.10 However, as I will argue in the following sections, the Leninist-Marxist inclusiveness regarding the history of the peasantry formed only one amongst several key points of reference which enabled the production of a varied Hungarian scholarship on the history of agrarian labour from the nineteenth century to the advent of state socialism. Peasant history and the special place of agrarian labour in Hungarian and Eastern European History 7 Agrarian history, and peasant history as one of its core areas, made great strides forward 1 0 2 in Hungary since the 1960s. In quantitative terms the peasantry was the dominant social r be group in Hungary under capitalism. Historians who – for various and quite divergent rea- m e sons – were interested in the special character of both Hungarian agricultural development c De and Hungarian agricultural society developed broad and inclusive definitions of agrarian 1 labour and paid keen attention to its varieties and transformations. In 1961, the compar- 2 8 ative historian Emil Niederhauser published a historical sketch describing two types of 3 0: agricultural development in Eastern Europe in the latter part of the nineteenth century and 0 at pointed, in broad strokes, to its consequences for agrarian labour.11 In 1963, an Agrarian ] ry History Research Group was installed within the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.12 Two a br years earlier, in 1961, the doyen of peasant history, István Szabó, whose work reached back Li U well into the interwar period, had presented and subsequently published an outline of the E history of the ‘Peasantry in Hungary in the Epoch of Capitalism’ in Századok, the venerable C y [ and prestigious key journal of the historians’ profession. Szabó in this study introduced a b d ‘working group’ of young historians in Budapest and all over the country whose joint work e d in progress focused on the period before the First World War.13 The monumental two-vol- a o nl ume publication The Peasantry in Hungary in the Epoch of Capitalism 1848–1914, edited w by Szabó, appeared in 1965.14 Szabó and his contributors played a key role in establishing o D the study of all forms of peasant labour, and the differentiation among them, as a relevant and up-to-date subject of research. The 1961 outline was already looking at the ‘large and growing masses of peasants living from wage labour’ and treating them as an important group in their own right, forming a core component of any history of the peasantry. ‘This [social] stratum not only includes those who were without all means of production but also those who besides their smallholdings fell back on wage labour.’ Such strata had existed long before 1848 and included the traditional cottars. After 1848 ‘[b]esides the two most general forms of wage labour, the servants and the day labourers, old rudimentary feudal forms, accommodating to the capitalist transformation, continue to exist, yet new [forms] also come into being, such as the summás workers’ (to whom I will return in a moment). Two other similarly large groups of workers were associated, Szabó argued, with ‘decomposition as a problem zone’. There was one stratum of workers who ‘while staying in the framework of the village and not breaking away in a definite sense from agricultural labour, finds the base of its existence already outside of this sphere’. This group included pick and shovel 84 S . ZIMMERMANN men (the ‘cubics’), forestry workers and others. A second group sought refuge in migration within ‘but no less’ beyond the country and especially overseas, in this way breaking away from the village.15 Szabó summarized: ‘The concept of the peasantry in this larger sense is – eminently dissimilar class bonds notwithstanding – defined and bound together by economic, social, life style-related and cultural indicators.’16 A 200-page section of the 1965 two-volume publication was dedicated to the various forms of peasant production and peasant labour, while a 150-page section on the ‘landless’ agrarian population in reality discussed the conditions and various forms of dependent labour performed by smallholders and landless peasants. In his introduction to the two volumes, Szabó did not fail to mention those originally planned contributions which in the end could not be included. One study was missing from the section on peasants which would have dealt with land tenancy, sharecropping, step-by-step acquisition through work- ing the land, and so on in the context of activities aimed at acquiring land. The section on the landless population was reduced to studies on three groups ‘who actually emerged on 7 the ground of the capitalist system’ whereas a ‘multi-faceted … discussion of the various 1 0 2 further strata of the decomposing/disintegrating peasant block’ was, as Szabó admitted, a r be project so large that an ‘independent work’ was needed for the purpose.17 m e In the 150-page section on the ‘landless’ agrarian population, a systematic enquiry into c De the varieties of combinations of different types of dependent labour over time was under- 1 girded in a lively manner via reference to, for instance, contemporary sayings such as ‘I have 2 8 been everything save a hung man.’18 The related unpaid family labour in and around the 3 0: house and, if applicable, on the smallholding, was mentioned and present throughout the 0 at contributions, yet it was also treated as a given and visibly not considered a type of work ] ry worth a separate contribution. a br The 50-page contribution on the summás workers, seasonal workers bringing their own Li U tools and being recruited for a fixed period of time from often far away regions, may serve E as a particularly rich study exemplifying the approach. The summás workers often worked C y [ for a lump sum or were paid monthly; at times, accomplishment-related elements, and so b d on, were added. Summás work was organized as ‘gang’ labour, often building on ties between e d families and relatives, with contracts signed well in advance by the always male leader. a o nl Over time, recruitment could also take on a more commercialized character, involving w independent professionals. The summás workers were maintained on the large and also o D smaller estates in a form agreed upon in detail in advance. Zoltán Sárközi, the author of the chapter on summás work,19 quotes at length from the contracts which gave details not only on the wages and the number of men and women (sometimes labelled in the contracts, together with children, ‘halfhands’) hired in this way, but also, for example, about the strictly gender-differentiated so-called ‘konvenció’, with women as a rule receiving a half-allotment of wine and a reduced allotment of food (sometimes half of what the men received). The ‘konvenció’ formed a quintessential element of the contracts, and Sárközi quotes Gyula Illyés’ masterful description of the arrival of the ‘gang’ of pale and slimmed-down workers on 1 May at the puszta. The locals would barely recognize in the returning workers the healthy and well-nourished people who had left at the end of the previous October. The contracts also referred to the organization of cooking for and feeding the workers. Sometimes the estate hired a separate woman cook for the purpose; in other cases the ‘gang’ itself had to include such a female cook, whose duties and allotment were separately described. EUROPEAN REVIEW OF HISTORY: REVUE EUROPÉENNE D'HISTOIRE 85 Using written and oral sources Sárközi’s study takes pains to establish the exact reasons, time, geography and spread (including in terms of numbers of workers) of this type of labour, the direction of migration, especially of non-magyar workers within the country, as well as the in- and out-migration and even the parallel developments in other Central Eastern European countries. The study discusses how the rise of the summás type of organ- izing labour had been related to the decline in the grain price and crop changes from the 1870s. It mentions how these developments contributed to growing pressure on the more local work force, pointing to the demand for (additional) portions of unpaid labour to be performed, for additional products to be handed over to the estate for free, and, especially in corn production, the reduction of the share, or even the end, of sharecropping. Sárközi does not miss quoting many examples of how the ‘gangs’, especially of non-magyar workers, were used to break the famous harvesters’ strikes of the more local agrarian workforce. In the end, these latter episodes, however, remain firmly placed in the pre-history of the spread of summás work, the larger-scale developments at the time, and the history of summás work 7 in the years after the strikes. Sárközi also refers to the new agrarian labour legislation20 1 0 2 introduced since the 1890s which included serious penalties in case of breach of contract r be for all agrarian workers who did not qualify as servants, who for their part often subsisted m e on annual contracts. c De Imre Katona’s study on ‘Transitional Forms of Wage Labour’ is somewhat more of an 1 overview of many types of work and less rich in detail as compared to the study on summás 2 8 work.21 It includes larger sections aiming at generalization, comparison and conceptual 3 0: evaluation. Katona, who in the introductory section quotes the ‘hung man’ saying, was more 0 at interested than Sárközi in the evolving professional and workers’ consciousness of some ] ry of the groups of workers and their often unsuccessful endeavours to avoid falling back on a br agricultural labour. He follows up more systematically than Sárközi on the combination of Li U wage labour with labour related to the status as smallholder or landless peasant, and the E division of labour within the ‘gangs’ and the household. Like the other authors, Katona C y [ also talked about the ‘remnants’ of feudal relationships, the ‘in-between’ character of the b d situation, the ‘Prussian’ road of Hungarian agricultural development, and so on. However, e d in tandem with all the others, he never lets himself be distracted from the empirical detail a o nl and richness of the history of agrarian labour, or the aspiration to paint a faithful picture w of all its variety. o D These and other authors’ writing about the pre-1914 period tended to agree with those studying the interwar period that the somewhat open-ended and here and there still ‘pro- gressive’ character of the developments around agrarian labour had been transformed into a dead-end road of ‘hopelessness’ or despair in the interwar period. Already some of the village sociographers of the 1930s had tended to conceive of this ‘society’ as a special social formation. Géza Féja in the introduction he added to the 1957 edition of Stormy Corner underlined that ‘hopelessness’ was the people’s most ‘devastating contagion’. When con- ducting his field research in Hungarian villages in the 1930s Féja had received information about a peasant women’s sect. These women had left their families, assembled in the house of one Sára Török, the instigator, where they lay down on a pallet and refused to eat and drink, to the effect that some of them died.22 The 1970s witnessed a renaissance of conceptual thinking about Hungarian development with a special focus on the ‘agrarian society’ of the interwar period. The interest in large patterns of socio-economic development and the related social formations in different parts 86 S . ZIMMERMANN of Europe visibly informed the writings of historians such as Péter Gunst, and generated renewed interest in the earlier writings of Ferenc Erdei, one of the doyens of interwar soci- ography.23 Both of these authors conceived of the specific social structures and forms of labour that characterized ‘agrarian society’ and its relations to Hungarian society at large in the interwar world as a product of such larger trends. In 1976 Ferenc Erdei’s hitherto unpublished manuscript ‘Hungarian Society between the World Wars’, written in 1944/45, was published in the journal Valóság. Erdei in this study had aimed to develop a conceptual vocabulary different from the ‘senseless and useless’ one provided by Western sociology – this is how he had put this insight back in 1938 – so as to be able to describe and explain the divided and blocked ‘social structure’ of Hungarian society. Due to a long-term ‘phase delay’, an excluded ‘peasant underworld’ had been frozen into a quasi-permanent existence. In contradistinction to the standard type of the working class, this underworld did not partake in Hungary’s ongoing bourgeois development. Erdei considered this fact to be the key problem of Hungarian society in the period before the advent of state socialism.24 The 7 1970s also saw a collected re-edition of the work of Ferenc Erdei. Péter Gunst was a member 1 0 2 from the beginning of the Agrarian History Research Group of the Hungarian Academy r be of Sciences, and a key figure in research on agrarian history in the later decades of state m e socialism. Retrospectively, Gunst not only insisted that he had been a Marxist all along, c De but also claimed that his non-orthodox conviction that Hungary did not belong to Eastern 1 Europe but to some in-between sector bearing the characteristics of both the Eastern and 2 8 the Western European type of development had been fully developed by the early 1970s.25 3 0: In the 1980s, Gunst published his The Peasant Society in Hungary in the Interwar Period, 0 at which was conceptualized as an inclusive piece of scholarship with a long chapter devoted ] ry to the ‘way of life’ of the ‘peasant society’. The Peasant Society, as it aimed to translate a br these conceptual underpinnings into empirical research, was clearly influenced, but in Li U important aspects also went beyond, the traditions of writing the history of agrarian labour E discussed so far. In terms of the inclusion of all landless and other poor strata living in the C y [ countryside and involved in labour in primary production, Gunst’s study was very similar b d to Szabó’s two-volume edition published more than 20 years earlier. In conceptual terms, e d the fact that due to delayed industrialization the peasantry could not dissolve as quickly as a o nl necessary was identified as the ‘ultimate malady’ of the ‘peasant society’. Given a number w of specific additional changes, this ‘hybrid’ situation in the 1920s and 1930s generated the o D ‘total crisis of the peasant society’. All ‘peasant’ strata were ‘shrivelling’ and ‘the pressure within the closed pot was growing’.26 When describing the variety of the forms of agrarian labour, Gunst emphasizes the instability of agrarian labour and workers’ involvement in varying types of labour. Gunst’s research and approach are innovative in that he presents a methodologically sophisticated analysis not only of the wages but the overall direct and indirect income and thus the standard of living of each of the strata identified, paying keen attention to variety within each stratum and in terms of geography. The focus both on establishing the standard of living of various groups is connected with another innovative feature: the focus on households and families as key units of analysis. The latter also means that the division of labour within the family, the phenomenon of income-pooling, and the income-generating activities of women become much more visible as compared to earlier scholarship. The wives of agricultural servants, of ‘cubics’, and – if these women stayed at home – of summás workers, often and whenever possible hired themselves out as day labour- ers. These findings are also supported by quantitative data. Gunst underlines – referring, EUROPEAN REVIEW OF HISTORY: REVUE EUROPÉENNE D'HISTOIRE 87 once again, to a doyen of interwar sociography, Péter Veres – that ‘the standard of living of any single agro-proletarian family in fact was determined by the composition of the fam- ily’, i.e. the ‘number of the dependents’ and ‘the number of earners’.27 When discussing the varied character of agrarian labour relations, Gunst again refers to the family. ‘[W]ithin the families the [labour] relations mostly were mixed; summás workers, sharecroppers and day labourers could be found within the same family, and even the same individual’ engaged in these various types of labour relations.28 Gunst, in closing his The Peasant Society, large sections of which can be read as another important contribution to the history of agrarian labour, refers to a number of research gaps. One of them is the question of peasant sects, which – while a future subject of study in its own right – possibly were to be understood as one ‘outlet’ for the pressure in the closed ‘pot’ of the Hungarian ‘peasant society’ of the interwar period.29 The identification and conceptualization of issues to be addressed by future research, and translation of these insights into systematic collaborative research plans and projects, was a universal feature 7 of labour historiography under state socialism. 1 0 2 r e mb Inclusive local and regional history e c De The studies and publications of a nationwide outlook discussed so far made use, among 1 other things, of the results of local studies, and some of the authors themselves at the 2 8 beginning of their careers published one or more specialized local studies. Under state 3 0: socialism, local and county-level history developed early on into a burgeoning branch of 0 at not infrequently high-quality historical research in its own right. This development was ] ry in all likelihood connected in particular to the ‘radical’ modernization of the archives, a br which made research on the local and county level much easier than before. In addition, it Li U profited from the large-scale expansion of the holdings of the county archives induced by E the social and political transformation after 1945, which made available many archives, for C y [ instance those of the large estates of the pre-1945 period, for public research.30 Authors, b d institutions and research groups with a sustained interest in the history of one region e d often pursued a broad and inclusive, or at least a multiple, interest in various aspects of a o nl the history of these regions, which as a rule historically had been strongly agricultural in w character. As a result, the oeuvre of these historians, and/or the volumes or clusters of vol- o D umes emerging within these contexts, tended to address various dimensions of the history of agrarian labour, among other topics. This explains why some high-profile key works on agrarian labour or including a focus on agrarian labour published over the decades focused on regional developments. Virtually all of the publications in this cluster were kept in close conversation with local sources and repeatedly included extensive reprints and facsimiles of original sources. The publications of Klára T. Mérey, whose work fed into this second cluster of writings, may serve as an example of how the holistic interest in one region could make important contributions to the larger history of agrarian labour via both the establishment in minute detail of systematic historical trends, and the explo- ration of new research questions arising from such foundational research. Mérey was a researcher at the Trans-Danubian Scientific Institute (of the Centre of Regional Research of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences) from 1952 to 1990.31 After her first important study, published in 1953 in Századok, her work over the decades focused nearly exclusively on a limited geographical area, especially Somogy County, in southwestern Hungary. Her work