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

Nationhood and IdentityCulture functions as a principle of distinction. On the one hand, it compriseselements that simultaneously distinguish the Hungarians from theRomanians and homogenize them (not least in terms of common belonging)under a collective identity. On the other hand, while consecratingtheir bond with the Hungarian nation and the legitimacy of their allegedattachment to the external national homeland, culture further differentiatesthem from Hungarians in Hungary.Only 8.2% of the Hungarians in Transylvania believe that beinga Hungarian citizen is essential for being considered a Hungarian. Evenmore arbitrary, and thus less significant, is the place where one was bornand the place where one lives. Birthplace is considered important innational identification by 3.0% of Hungarians, compared to 56.3% ofRomanians (this is the most important defining characteristic for themajority group). Residence is of importance for 2.4% of Hungarians, and,respectively, 18.2% of Romanians. The most important feature for Hungariansis the language (82.5%), operating both as a practical and a symbolicmeans of national self-assertion. Language is one key element of therelationship between Romanians and Hungarians (not least at an institutionallevel), as it is the most powerful symbolic and institutional elementof domination. 32 If citizenship (which may be understood as a bureaucratic,administrative, or institutional element) is not important for the selfidentificationas an ethnic Hungarian in Transylvania, the situation isopposite in the case of the Hungarian flag, symbolically situated at theconfluence of the institutional and the cultural field. Honoring the Hungarianflag receives a more important weight than the one accorded to citizenship(17.3%).Analytically, the national self-definition of Romanians is a mixedterritorial-cultural construct. The Hungarians’ national self-definition ispar excellence cultural. Nevertheless, as I indicated before, nation andnationality as systems of categories of perception and practice are shapedby the individual and group relations with the set of institutions (state-territorial,regional, and local, respectively cultural and political) organizingtheir everyday life.In order to analyze the internal consistency of these definitions,I examine the correspondent definitions of “the other.” Do Romanianspreserve their criteria of identification when they offer definitions of Hungarians?Do Hungarians preserve their criteria of identification when theydefine the Romanians? In the following table the paired figures are presented:237