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

elevance, underpinning and potentially amplifying the prejudices andstigmatization already all too prevalent in the reciprocal perceptions ofthe parties concerned. Romanians and Hungarians have mutuallyremained “constitutive others” for one another throughout the 1990s,a situation which has not in the least been alleviated by academic discourse,and which has been awkwardly accompanied by ebbs and flows inthe reconciliation of decision-making elites. The “basic treaty” of 1996 (anacknowledgement of existing borders and minority rights, also providingfor future political partnership) had been preceded by a virtual non-existenceof diplomatic relations and followed by the present strain over thelaw recently passed by the Hungarian Parliament granting a special status(in Hungarian labour relations, education etc.) to ethnic Hungarians fromneighboring countries.Against this background, it is particularly important and reassuringthat there are several scholars at both sides of the putative frontier, someof them at the very beginning of their careers, who are making efforts totranscend the limitations imposed by traditional patterns of inquiry andcommunication. It is an especial pleasure to see that the History Departmentof Central European University, as it was intended from the verybeginning of its existence, is developing as a natural home for such initiatives.Part of the CEU mission is to function as a laboratory in which themost up-to-date experience and achievement in the disciplines representedat CEU is tested against the particular predicament of the region andadjusted according to its needs, and to operate as a catalyst which, throughan active engagement with an increasing range of regional partners – suchas, in this case, the Teleki Institute –, helps the region to integrate withmore universal processes. The architects of this volume and the conferencefrom which it arises, have been active for a few years now in creatingnetworks for a new type of academic socialization while relying on a combinationof solid theoretical training and broad empirical investigation.It is yet to be seen how successful the admirable ambition to turn all of thisto making an impact “above” and “below” – by “policy recommendationson bilateral confidence-building”, as they suggest – will be. Their ownindependent initiatives as well as their astonishingly rapid integration withlarger scale international schemes, such as the projects of the Center forDemocracy and Reconciliation in Southeast Europe, certainly bid well forthe enterprise. This volume is the first token of their commitment anda convincing proof of their qualifications to cope with a formidable task.I am sure the reader will join me in wishing them – us – all success in it.June 2001LÁSZLÓ KONTLER8