"As a Historian I know": Populist History and Paradox of Academic Authority in Case of Vlastimil Vondruška's Life and Work
Abstract
In this paper I offer an analysis of works by Czech author Vlastimil Vondruška famous for his popular criminal stories and novels with historical background framed by a debate on populism and the rise of iliberal political trends in central Europe. My point of interest is the way how can an author who explicitly expresses populist notion of people vs. elites distinction use the academic authority and expertise respectively. Analysing Vondruška's both fiction and his non-fiction books I trace the contradictory position that he advocates. On side he criticizes academics and academia in general as a corrupted field that is pushed only by pecuniary and selfish motivations. On the other side he uses scientific and expert authority in case of his characters and his public activity to comment on topical issues. I argue that this contradiction is not only caused by false use of arguments and facts but that it is a case of liar's paradox which in my view principal attribute of populist discourse.
In conclusions I discuss the ways how historians responded to Vondruška's wide popularity in Czech public both as an author of fiction and as a commentator using historical analogies. I argue that we need not just criticism focused on false arguments and misleading facts nor it is sufficient to argue against the values and beliefs that they advocate. I believe that we have to change our understanding of relation between science and society from linear paradigm of "popular science" to more complex participative concept of societally engaged science that can address the populist challenges we face today.