Nation-Building and Contested Identities - MEK

I claim that the production of the present-day identities of Romaniansand Hungarians in Transylvania is essentially structured by these twohistorical processes, besides the emotional and symbolic heritage of thecommon history within the Habsburg Empire. In Transylvania, the firsthistorical process meant the demotion of a national group, as the Hungarianslost their administrative positions together with all the privilegesassociated with a politically dominant ethnicity. This was accompanied bythe political and cultural rise of the formerly subjugated ethnic group: theTransylvanian Romanians. At the level of elite discourse, “Transylvanism,”the ideology of the Transylvanian Hungarian elite, born as a result of theseparation of Transylvania from Hungary, was symptomatic for the Hungariantrauma of territorial and symbolic loss. In contrast, the Romanianreaction included various integrationist ideological productions.The second historical process injured both national groups. Thenational ideology developed during Ceauºescu’s rule was, in fact, a formof de-nationalization of the Romanians themselves, rooted in a need tomystify national history according to the logic of an immanent communistsociety, and to legitimize the communist leader who represented himselfas the symbol of the “novel” social and mental structures of the Romaniansociety. This process of “modernization” and of “new” nation-buildingaffected the Hungarians as well. During this period of time, they also witnesseda further demotion of their national group in terms of the status ofthe education in Hungarian language.Conceptual FrameworkNationhood and IdentityThe fall of the totalitarian system in December 1989 produced the reformulationof arguments (and fears) regarding the nation and the state, thusconsecrating the language of debates that were carried within a differentinstitutional context and following different rules of communication thanbefore. One may argue that the national discourse was a constitutive partof the process of re-institutionalization of the Romanian society, especiallyin the spheres of education, local administration, and party-politics.Therefore, such an analysis necessitates a relational perspective. 15The identities that the majority population and the minority groups construct(both self-identities and identities of the other), as well as the relationshipbetween them, are shaped not only by recent history, but also bythe continuous struggles to legitimize their discourses and actions withinthe current Romanian political field. Both the majority and the minorityelites seek positions of domination, trying to define the legitimate valuesand symbolic capitals, and imposing perception schemes that would servetheir aims and goals.229