The redefinition of citizenship and the political management of cultural diversity,
in the context of the enlargement of the European Union, is of special interest
to an anthropologist interested in history.
The present geopolitical situation in eastern-central Europe today is analogous
to what it was two centuries ago: the withdrawal of an Empire (in this case
the Soviet Empire rather than the Ottoman Empire) created a “void”
and the associated need for a redefinition of citizenship and intercultural
relations. It appears that a transition period was necessary to fill this void
in the interim in order that the citizenry in the region could adapt to the
new norms and regulations. In both cases models of citizenship and intercultural
relations are forged according to western standards, based on the Enlightenment,
viz the succeeding Austrian Empire or now the European Union.
Anthropologists have denounced many times the recurrent confusion between universal
and western European values. But this confusion seems to be recurring once again
in the context of defining citizenship in a multicultural eastern-central Europe.
Comparison of the emergence of “citizen-subjects” in the eastern Austrian
Empire during the late 18th century with the present process of becoming a “European
free citizen” in the same region reveals a striking analogy. Both in the
18th century and now, the population divides into two categories: the “believers”,
those who seek the new identity (citizenship and integration) and the “resistors”,
those who refuse it. In terms of political labels we are speaking of progressives
and conservatives. The attitude adopted is determined by neither ethnicity or
culture nor by the present social status alone, but by people’s decision
to maintain or improve their social and economic position.
Paying closer attention to history and ethnography could help avoiding costly
mistakes and delusions. Reason no more rules today than yesterday: cultural
heritage, propaganda, power, property and money, education and feelings still
play a considerable role in people’s convictions, behaviour and decisions.
It is this complex interplay of factors and historical influences on behaviour
that cultural anthropology strives to clarify, while retaining the perspective
of a distant observer.
The question of political rights and participation (citizenship in brief) and
the relationship among different communities within nation-states (intercultural
relations) are discussed everywhere in Europe today and not only in Eastern
Europe.
Why is it so, or better who’s concern is it really?
In Eastern Europe, the collapse of the old political regime can easily explain
the necessity for new rules for a new game, called “free democracy”.
The question remains only: who establishes the rules and based on what principles?
“Time never comes back”, is a popular saying. There are however historical
circumstances that seem to recall analogous situations in the past and analogous
reactions.
As a cultural anthropologist I believe in the virtue of analogy alongside historical
perspective. Analogy is valuable because it reveals strong affinities rather
than similarities.
The opening of Eastern Europe’s borders in 1989 evoked to me the opening
of almost the same borders in the middle of the 18th Century, when the Ottoman
withdrew from Eastern Europe. Together with these comparable “geopolitical”circumstances
and framework, the relationship between East and West seems to be equally analogous.
My point is to show how, in both circumstances, then and now, an enlightened
ideology, proclaiming itself universal, presided and presides over so-called
“dialogue” between Eastern and Western Europe. Once again in the name
of the three most vaunted principles of the West, welfare, progress and development,
western European culture and values are imposed with very little room for cultural
dialogue and variations...and also, as we shall see, with little success.
1683-1739. The Habsburg Empire, an absolute Monarchy, recovers territories
in the East. Started after 1683 –after the failed siege of Vienna by Ottoman
troops, it continues into the 18th century until the stabilisation of borders
in 1739 (Belgrade treaty)
1772-1775. Following the partition of Poland, Galicia (1772) and later
with the blessing of Russia, Bukovina (1775) are incorporated into the empire
16-19th century. A steady military presence on the frontiers dating from
the late 16th century marks the Eastern end of Europe during the 18th century
as well as the 19th century with very few changes. It consists materially of
a “wooden wall”( a succession of control towers called chardak) starting
at the Croatian seashore and ending in Transylvania. Special units of various
ethnic background, such as Uskoken, Vallachs, Raitzen etc., and later Germans
as well, are settled on plots of land with their families.
Their duties is to protect the frontiers and simultaneously to work the land
and keep cattle. Occasionally they have to join the imperial army, wherever
a war breaks out.
1770 A cordon sanitaire is established behind the Militaergrenze to combat
the plague.
18th century A vast colonisation of the recovered territories is organised
Summary of the political intentions (aims) of the Emperors:
Maria Theresia (1740-1780) and her son Joseph II (1780-1790 but co-regent from
1765)
Unity, Peace, Welfare (= population growth, security, health and education)
The ways for achieving this aims are reforms and development and the tools law,
religion and language, as well as economic growth.
Reform means rewriting the regulations and constitutions concerning public and
private status (citizenship), penalties, privileges and duties, property and
taxes.
Development applies to population (in number) and to economy (in both growth
and technology). It involves, security measures – particularly against
fire, hygiene and public education. Finally it concerns the restructuring of
land.
This programme can be called a typically progressive “enlightened absolutist”
programme.
The Present situation EU and Eastern Europe
The programme of the “enlargement” of the European Union is based
on a set of rules and regulations or so called “acquis communautaires.”
In a recent lecture, given at the University of Fribourg, M.A.Severin, President
of the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE was addressing the question of multiculturalism
in Europe. He called the EU enlargement “a positive Western imperialism”
because the Union conceives European integration exclusively as a transfer of
its model – the acquis communautaires. Meanwhile the entry of the East
in the Union, was called by M. Severin (with a touch of humour) the “expansion
of Eastern disorder” which could contribute to a synthesis of the European
identity. In a more political view he added: “we are dealing with building
up a common identity of the “Great Europe” based on a unique set of
values and compatible institutions integrated into a unitary management system
of continental scope. Therefore, the European process is a matter of power and
culture. Those who have the power to transfer to others their own cultural-identitary
paradigm increase their power to consolidate their security. From this viewpoint,
the acquis communautaires are in fact, acquis identitaires.”
To me, this short reference to the enlargement of the European Union towards
the East, encapsulates perfectly the unequal and often fought battle between
a self proclaimed order against a claimed disorder in the name of civilisation
and progress. Culture and diversity are seen only in terms of advancement and
underdevelopment respectively, that is to say in a pure evolutionist perspective.
Let me now return to the 18th Century:
At a macro-social level, personal status was defined and categorised within
a combination of privileges and tolerances attributed to different "nations"
or peoples. As we know, the very category or concept of nation or rather nations,
was already used in the 18th century, before the existence of nation-states.
It was then replaced by the term "ethnic minorities". In German (viz
in the Austrian administration) one used the term “Nationalisten”
to designate without distinction non-German, local (indigenous) people.
In Transylvania the well known system of the 3 nations was confirmed by the
Empress: the Diet was formed out of their representatives, the Germans (Saxons
colonists established in the late middle ages), the Szekler nobility (a Transylvanian
branch of Magyars) and the Magyar nobility. The others ("minorities"
by their ethnic background but not in number as it was the case for Romanians)
have no political right whatsoever. They consisted of Valachs (Romanians), Gypsies,
Jews, Armenians mainly, but also Slavs, Serbs, Croatians, Slovaks and Ukrainians.
Many Slavs were enrolled in the Militaergrenze and enjoyed therefore special
status and direct relations with the central administration (1).
One of the big issues in the 18th century (and later) was the reunification
of the Greek-Catholic with the Roman-Catholic Church. Formally it occurred in
1700 but the status of the members of this new church was not clearly defined.
Religious affiliation was linked with political status (citizenship if you like)
and they hoped that all Greek-Catholics would form a new nation, i.e. become
citizens, with political rights. But it did not happen.
(In 1740 the Empress confirmed the rights and privileges of the 3 nations; in
1742 the rights of the Uniates were established, but the Diet of Transylvania
interpreted in 1744 the term “united” as applicable only to the clergy
and to noblemen. Therefore the Romanians (Valachs) never became a fourth nation.
It is worth noting that serfdom was abolished in principle in 1781 and torture
in 1776 by Joseph II.
We shall also mention the Josefinian project –supported by enlightened
Magyar nobility – to liberate Gypsies from serfdom and make them become
farmers.
But the personal status of the Austrian emperor’s subject also depended
upon his development policy. A vast colonisation (immigration) took place during
the 18th century, parallel to the incorporation of soldiers in the military
frontier. Their presence and status deeply challenged the legal and political
status of the local population –bondsmen and noblemen. As a matter of fact,
the colonists enjoyed a special status which could be perhaps compared, with
extreme caution and essentially as far as the reactions it created, with the
status offered by Hungary only a few months ago to Romanians of Hungarian descent.
(The latter can be seen either as an generous offer for a better life or as
a diplomatic blunder!)
I would like to move from this very general historical account to the field
or to the micro-social approach to get a better sense of what “citizenship”
meant to different people, in real life as opposed to the imperial regulations.
We can identify two opposing reactions to the enlightened policies and practical
measures of the Empire
A first general observation of the region in late 18th century shows a vigorous
reaction by the landlords and generally by the nobility to any reform or changes,
in Transylvania as well as in Galicia and Bukovina. The new status of peasants
and the introduction of German language created outrage. Let me quote this report
by a German observer in 1793 (2):
“Census taking and numbering of houses were ordered and executed. The
number was displayed on the house in big figures before one had the opportunity
to understand what it was all about. Hungarians who had been in Bohemia or Austria
explained to their neighbours who didn’t know: we are now all Germans and
all soldiers. To be soldiers was all right, but Germans, that has profoundly
disturbed them. Coupled with the announcement of the introduction of German
language, it provoked an explosion. But figures are there and men have been
registered in the book of life. Each time that he entered or left his house,
the owner could see the number on his way and that exasperated him. Even time
did not diminish this obnoxious feeling; on the contrary it was stronger every
day. He would have changed his house for a hut, - had he only found one, as
long as the number was not there, symbol of his bondage – because this
is how he sees it.”
b.- Integration as social promotion
For those who accepted the status quo the new proposed pattern was an incentive
to improve their position in society. This implies an acceptance of a new set
of values and the understanding of its benefits. Progressive aristocracy and
privileged “nations” (Saxons and Szekler in Transylvania) were keen
to follow the programme proposed by the Monarch, a programme of equality and
welfare. As Colonel Wielhorski wrote in 1782:
“The intention of your Imperial Majesty is too well known to be doubted
in this regard. Your Majesty wants a perfect equality among all his subjects;
equality of charges (duties) proportional to an individual’s faculties,
equality in welfare relative to the class of citizen”(observe the terms
equality, welfare and citizen)
c. Intercultural relations, migrations and conflicts
On the issue of intercultural relations the 18th century sources provide a vast
collection of testimonies: mobility, migration, forced migration, immigration
and emigration were extremely frequent.
Traditionally, nomads (sheperds) moved from place to place; ruined peasants
escaped in migrating, others settled in the state farms of the Militaergrenze
or State (Cameral) lands. Soldiers, deserters and refugees added to this extraordinary
mobility.
When we come to the sensitive question of intercultural mixing, we have to be
cautious and remember that ethnic or national identity was always problematic,
since ethnic label was given according to language, religion and even occupation...
Among the Transylvanians, preservation of their culture (unmixing) seems to
have lasted until the 19th century, according to this account from 1814:"peoples
living in Transylvania keep with a sort of obstinacy to their ways and customs;
nothing could convince them to change or modify their character. They all keep
with pride their national spirit. Never would they ally with other nations and
this is rather ridiculous"
The same seems to apply for Szeklers: "they have much national pride:
a Szekler woman would not marry a Valach (Romanian) man, from the defeated race....
Among Szekler, Romanians lose their language and nationality".
But not among Hungarians:"in Hungarian Comitats (districts), in a village
populated by Magyar and Valach peasants in equal numbers, the Valach population
absorbs the Hungarian one after a while and Romanian language rules. On the
contrary among Szeklers the Hungarian element absorbs the Valachian one. Today,
one can account for many Szeklers who belong to the Greek religion. They are
simply de-nationalised Valachs"(the last account dates 1845).
Reciprocal contempt or “ethnic-hatred” is frequent and well attested.
Its expression varied, but the use of pejorative epithets is common (as everywhere...)
Other examples of conflicts of culture embrace the field of economy and technology,
between traditional local ways of farming and imported ones, mainly from the
German tradition.
But does the historical and political situation I have evoked ring any bells?
What are the analogies between the two world, 18 and 20th century?
As in the former Austrian Empire’s new colonies in the 18th Century, unity
is only apparent in most of Eastern Central Europe today. Statistics do not
give a real picture, since many “nationals” are still assimilated
by their language or their religious affiliation. Furthermore the development
policy is imposed from the outside with no consideration for the local experience
or local culture. The present entitled nations’ Governments are facing
an impossible task: to obtain unity inside their territories, in order to be
able to govern, and at the same time to introduce democracy in order to fit
European established criteria and enter the Union. In this regard, Governments
could be compared with the regional administration of the Empire or the local
aristocracy: on the one hand they resist any intrusion of foreign rules to save
their own privileges, those of the entitled nation, while on the other hand
they try to comply with European standards in order to keep their managing position
and longer term interests.
(Differences affect minorities especially in Transylvania where the new ruling
nation is composed of Romanians and the traditional ruling nations have become
protected minorities (Magyar, Szekler); as far as migrations are concerned,
German immigrants have become emigrants: they have left the country to “go
back” in Germany (after centuries)
To conclude:
In the perspective of the management of multiculturality and citizenship the
analogy between the present enlargement of the European Community and that of
the Austrian Monarchy after 1759 can be summarised in the aforementioned opposition
:
Assimilation and resistance
Citizenship –although there are different categories of subjects or minorities-
is proposed by the State or the Emperor as the only desirable way to attain
welfare. Differences- for example religious practices- are tolerated as long
as they don’t contradict the progressive model based upon a (western enlightened)
individualistic and universal conception of man and culture.
Integration is the motto, and agents for this integration are disseminated among
the population: they are colonists in the 18th century and development agents,
religious missionaries and NGO’s today. The Uniate church in Transylvania
is supporting anew assimilation and integration into the West.
But as we know, Josefinian reforms in the 18th century (which could be interpreted
in today’s terminology as transition measures) failed, at least on the
short term. Similarly and in many aspects, particularly in economical terms,
transition has not happened yet in eastern-central Europe. Nevertheless, one
could assume that the part of the population that is able to cope with a western
model of citizenship has or will benefit soon from material welfare. This “elite”,
far from being an intellectual elite (it includes small businessmen as well
as political leaders) will quickly adopt European standards –as did in
a less visible way the nomenklatura not so long ago, as well as the provincial
nobility in the 18th century. But what will happen to the farmer who, for the
first time, is the owner of his piece of land, or with the former State worker
with no links to any western “brother” and no NGO training course
in language and management? “Mister, you are not modern” (Domnule
nu esti modern!): this popular Romanian expression heard many times, illustrates
well the recurrent conflict between tradition and innovation in eastern-central
Europe.
Resistance of the traditional society: exacerbated nationalism
On the other end of the social spectrum, resistance is the normal reaction to
the threat that any external power –even humanist and full of good intentions-
brings with it.
As in the 18th century, the perspective of belonging to a “foreign”
body stimulates resistance and resentment within a part of the population. These
people are naturally going to reinforce the opposition to any effort to unbalance
the majority and acquired majority/ethnic privileges. Therefore under what we
may consider as pure old fashioned nationalism, historical and cultural resentment
is hidden, and it could well still create surprises, as after all it does
in western Europe, under the pressure of these new "intruders", the
non Schengen immigrants. Orthodoxy for example, has already been taken hostage
by the conservative movement. The “bad guys” need more than ever a
strong identity. It is perhaps worth mentioning that in both case those who
resist the new trend are inevitably pushed in the “bad corner” of
the “conservative extreme right” or at least in a remote underdeveloped
dark ages humanity.
The question therefore I am asking is: are citizenship, as developed for
two centuries in western Europe, and multicuturalism, as it fails to provide
ways for the integration of non European citizen today, models to be exported
in Eastern Europe?
Is it reasonable to propose outdated models for a new situation we all face
viz globalisation?
The analogy I’ve been drafting would certainly need some more field work.
But it may eventually stimulate ethnographical micro-social research as an indispensable
complement to economic and political perspectives.
1. The role of the army in smarting up peasants and exposing
them to intercultural contact is well known.
2. This and the following quotations are extracted from " A l'est rien de nouveau, de la barbarie à la civilisation", François Ruegg, Georg, Geneva 1991.