Nation-Building and Contested Identities - MEK

MARIUS TURDAits “national and unitary” character. This attitude marks a change in therepresentation of Transylvania, since the polemic is no longer onlybetween centralists and regionalists, but over the notion of the state itself.It is clear that, despite serious efforts to integrate into the new Europeanorder, Romanians should first attempt to surpass the endemic problem of“defending” a powerful construction: “Greater Romania.”After all, the identity convulsions Romanians experienced after 1989may well suggest something that was tacitly “avoided,” i.e., that the celebrated“unitary Romanian state” might be powerful, and, perhaps, necessary,but yet a historical anachronism. This point is important because it representsyet another oppositional stance within the increasingly global discourseabout “the nation-state.” As a localised commentary on the historicalrepresentation in Romania and its dialogue with imported Westernmodels, my perspective suggests that the Western conceptions of the statemay be quite restrictive and misleading. It is not surprising that the emergingformulae of European integration (as, for example, those described byGusztáv Molnár 10 ), based almost exclusively on Western European experiences,could hardly be associated with the image of România – seen as thetotal state, and as the only depository of the power of the society. This bringsus to the next point. How does the discussion concerning the nation-stateand regionalism influence the perception Romanians have about Europe?Intersected DiscoursesRomanian discourse on Europe is fragmented and multifaceted. This situationmakes any analysis of Romanian society extremely difficult. Although,in many respects Romania does not differ radically from other Eastern Europeancountries, in some other respects, however, it does posses severalunique characteristics.Since the birth of the modern age, states have either attempted toforge a homogeneous nations from disparate cultural and regional groupingswithin their domain, or ethnic groups have sought political autonomyin order to establish themselves as independent actors on the nationalstage. In order to understand this permanent negotiation, one shouldrelate to the tortuous representation of national integration. It is, forexample, impossible to deny that we are witnessing a profound transformationof the idea of the nation-state. In a world of porous borders, theability of nation-states to define themselves as compact entities seems tobe condemned to atrophy. Underlying this is another, possibly deeper,problem that arises from the mechanisms that determine how regionalidentities are internalised. It is within this contested terrain of polymorphouspower relationships that Transylvania – as generator of regional200