12.07.2015 Views

Nation-Building and Contested Identities: Romanian & Hungarian ...

Nation-Building and Contested Identities: Romanian & Hungarian ...

Nation-Building and Contested Identities: Romanian & Hungarian ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

IRINA CULICThe most powerful conceptual framework to analyze the relationshipbetween the majority <strong>and</strong> the minority <strong>and</strong>, more specific, the productionof identities, was recently proposed by Rogers Brubaker. 16He devised a conceptual construct to encompass the complex relationshipbetween the majority <strong>and</strong> the minority, between the minority <strong>and</strong> thenational state, as well as between cultural identity, national identity <strong>and</strong>citizenship. Brubaker’s conceptual construct comprises the relational triadicnexus of “nationalizing states,” “national minorities” <strong>and</strong> “externalnational homel<strong>and</strong>s.” 17 The word “nationalizing” instead of “national”suggests that the political <strong>and</strong> cultural elites of these ethnically heterogeneousstates “promote (to various degrees) the language, culture, demographicposition, economic flourishing, or political hegemony of the nominallystate-bearing nation.” 18 This is a part of a larger process ofstrengthening the state through social-political <strong>and</strong> economic integration.The national minority enters this relationship to the degree it representsa substantial, self-conscious, <strong>and</strong> organized community. It dem<strong>and</strong>s,by means of elite discourse <strong>and</strong> political action, cultural or political autonomy,<strong>and</strong> reacts to perceived discrimination or assimilation policies.As Brubaker argues, a state becomes an “external national homel<strong>and</strong>”when its political or cultural elites decide that their co-ethnics living inother states are members of one <strong>and</strong> the same nation. They claim thatthese co-ethnics“belong,” in some sense, to the state, <strong>and</strong> assert that their condition mustbe monitored <strong>and</strong> their interests protected <strong>and</strong> promoted by the state:when the state actually does take action in the name of monitoring, promoting,or protecting the interests of its ethnonational kin abroad. 19Socialization <strong>and</strong> Citizenship<strong>Hungarian</strong>s from Transylvania acquire their first framework of identificationwithin the symbolic space of a <strong>Hungarian</strong> family. 20 Their worldis constituted by relations <strong>and</strong> references centered on <strong>Hungarian</strong> culturalelements: language, celebrations, traditions, religious rituals, legends,myths, stories, <strong>and</strong> specific costume. As the child matures, his relationshipwith the outside world becomes more diversified <strong>and</strong> complex, as hisschemes of perception develop <strong>and</strong> become contoured. He begins to makeuse of classifications, classifying criteria, distinction markers <strong>and</strong> signs.In this process, the relationship with “the other” (i.e., ethnic <strong>Romanian</strong>s)represents a constitutive element in the shaping of dispositions. Theinteraction with “the other” fulfills several functions, such as experiencing<strong>and</strong> recognizing diversity; organizing this diversity so that certain cate-230

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!