The Construction of National Identity and its Challenges in Post-Yugoslav Censuses

876 Social Science Quarterly
There is a consensus among constructivist approaches that censuses are not mere statistical
exercises, but are rather inherently political. Nobles argues that “census bureaus are political
actors that help to make race a political reality and do not simply count by it” (2000:22).
The significance of the counting is derived from the social reality a census produces (Kertzer
and Arel, 2002:5; Goldscheider, 2002:72; Hirschman, 1987:557).
The census first shapes identity politics by “normalizing” race, ethnicity, or religion
and asking citizens to self-identify when they otherwise might not do so. Here, Pierre
Bourdieu’s assertion, made in the context of public opinion, equally applies to censuses:
“[O]ne of the most pernicious effects of the opinion surveys is to put people in a position
where they must answer a question they have never thought about, or mistakenly answer a
different question from that which was asked, the interpretation only being a record of the
misunderstand” (1979:125). Hence, we need to reflect on the categories, as well as their
assumptions, rather than just their specific content.
Second, censuses set the boundaries by determining which categories are legitimate and
implicitly exist. Nobles remarks: “Census-taking is one of the institutional mechanisms
by which racial boundaries are set” (2000:xi). Thus, if censuses ask about nation, race,
religion, or language they engage in boundary making. Boundary making also presupposes
a certain degree of homogenization of the groups circumscribed by these boundaries
(Appadurai, 1996:133). Particular policies can be directed at the group, suggesting that
its members have a certain degree of homogeneity. This assumption has been repeatedly
challenged, particularly when it comes to Roma communities in Central and Eastern Europe
(Vermeersch, 2003:897–98). Of course, this process is not completed with the questions
citizens are asked, but also occurs in their subsequent interpretation and categorization
(Cohen, 1987:243, 248). Scholars have also noted the importance of the census procedure
itself, which includes factors such as the background of the enumerators (Rallu, Piché, and
Simon, 2004:502, Rodríguez, 2000:135.)
Third, censuses rank identities. This might occur, as Hirschman (1987:563) notes in
his discussion of Malaysian census categories, by changing position of particular identities
in the ordering of the census categories, or their eventual inclusion in a residual category
of “Others.” Especially if censuses enumerate a limited number of categories, inclusion or
exclusion bestows a distinct value on an identity.
Fourth, census results can be linked to entitlements and group rights. From the policies of
affirmative action in the United States, to minority language thresholds based on the size of
a minority population, the size of a community matters (Kertzer and Arel, 2002:25). This
observation links the larger argument that institutional frameworks for groups empower
ethnic entrepreneurs in the process of mobilizing and reinforcing groups (Hale, 2000;
Roeder, 2007).
Uses of Racial Category
In addition to the functions of categorization, their purpose also is crucial. In the U.S.
census, there has been a shift from being a tool to uphold racial segregation toward enabling
affirmative action policies. In a comparative perspective, Rallu, Piché, and Simon (2004)
have argued that the choice to ask or not to ask citizens about ethnic, racial, or national
identity is based on four different approaches.
1. Counting to dominate.
2. Not counting for the goal of national integration.
3. Counting or not counting to acknowledge the diverse nature of the population.
4. Counting to justify policies to support minorities.