Nation-Building and Contested Identities - MEK

BALÁZS TRENCSÉNYI23 Zeletin, Burghezia românã. Neoliberalismul, pp. 426-427.24 Zeletin, Burghezia românã. Neoliberalismul, p. 429.25 Zeletin, Burghezia românã. Neoliberalismul, p. 154.26 Zeletin, Burghezia românã. Neoliberalismul, p. 266.27 Zeletin, Burghezia românã. Neoliberalismul, p. 154.28 Zeletin, Burghezia românã. Neoliberalismul, p. 268.29 Zeletin, Burghezia românã. Neoliberalismul, p. 176.30 Zeletin, Burghezia românã. Neoliberalismul, p. 424.31 Zeletin, Burghezia românã. Neoliberalismul, p. 437.32 On Manoilescu’s ideas, see Philippe C. Schmitter, “Reflections on MihailManoilescu and the Political Consequences of Delayed-Dependent Developmenton the Periphery of Western Europe,” in Jowitt ed., Social Change inRomania, 1860-1940, pp. 117-139.33 In an undated anecdote recorded by Petre Þuþea, Zeletin asserted that hejoined this party not because it had a splendid future, but because the wholeAcademy of Sciences was there, and it was a pleasant company, while the liberalshad a “great future,” but were a bit disgusting “from inside:” peddlars,“smelling of brânzã.” See C.D. Zeletin’s biographical introduction to Zeletin,Burghezia românã. Neoliberalismul, p. 19.34 Roberts, Rumania, pp. 67-85.35 See Irina Livezeanu, Cultural Politics in Greater Romania: Regionalism, NationBuilding & Ethnic Struggle, 1918-30 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1995).78