Prezentul volum cuprinde o selec ție a lucrarilor Colocviului Internațional Scriitura feminină ?i exilul în spațiul cultural francofon (Galați, 15… [601927]

COMMUNICATION
INTERCULTURELLE
ET LITTÉRATURE
NR. 1 (20) / 2013
Littérature
et exil
Coordination:
Alina Crihan ă
Institutul European
2014

Prezentul volum cuprinde o selec ție a lucrarilor Colocviului Internațional Scriitura
feminină ?i exilul în spațiul cultural francofon (Galați, 15 -16 noiembrie 2013) și a
lucrarilor Workshop -ului Literatură și exil (Galați, 4 iulie 2014). Volumul a fost
publicat cu sprijinul financiar al Proiectului „Performanța sustenabilă In cercetarea
doctorală și post doctorala” – PERFORM, POSDRU/159/1.5/S/138963
(http://www.perform.ugal.ro/ ), cofinanțat din Fondul Social European prin Programul
Operațional Sectorial Dezvoltarea Resurselor Umane 2007 -2013 – Axa Prioritară 1,
„Educația și formarea în sprijinul cre ?terii economice și dezvoltarii societatii bazate pe
cunoa ?tere”, Domeniul Major de Intervenție 1.5 „Programe doctorale și post -doctorale în
sprijinul cercetării”.
Contact: Centrul de Cercetare Comunicare Intercultural ă și Literatu ră,
Facultatea de Litere,
Universitatea „Dunărea de Jos”
Str. Domneasc ă, nr. 111, Galați; Cod poștal: 800001
Telefon: +40 -236-460476; Fax: +40 -236-460476
Director: [anonimizat]
Redactor -sef, [anonimizat]
Secretar de redactie: [anonimizat]
Comitetul de redactie: [anonimizat] , [anonimizat] , [anonimizat]
' Corectur ă: Alina Crihan ă, Nicoleta Ifrim, Marian Antofi
Difuzare: [anonimizat] , [anonimizat]
Abonamentele se fac la sediul redac ției, Str.
Domnească, nr. 111, Galați, cod 800001, prin
mandat poștal pe numele Simona Antofi.
Prețurile la abonamente sunt: 3 luni – 30 lei; 6 luni – 60 lei ; 12 luni – 120 lei.
Abonamentele pentru strainatate se fac achit ând costul la redacție.
După achitarea abonamentului, așteptăm prin fax sau e -mail adresa dvs. de expediție
pentru a v ă putea t rimite revista.

Voix f éminines de l’exil roumain en France : Monica
Lovinescu
Mihaela Rusu 98
Martha Bibescu and the Inside of Romania ’s domestic
Policy
Valeriu B ălteanu 109
La cr éation lyrique et gnomique de Julie Hasdeu , une
adoration des « neiges d’antan »
Mirela Drăgoi 114
Începuturile scrisului feminin românesc in exil:
Memoriile Elenei Văcărescu
Lucia -Luminița Ciucă 124
Réflexions (post)totalitaires, exil et double dans la
dramaturgie d’Anca Visdei
Elena Iancu 133
Exil și interferențe culturale 145
Étapes de la fictionnalisation de l’égo : H. Müller, La bascule
du souffle Violeta -Teodora Iorga (Lungeanu) 146
The Exile of the Japanese Adolescence
Andreea Ionescu 158
Romania as Exile: Stereotyping the Other in Maude Rea
Parkinson ’s Twenty Years in Romania
Oana Celia Gheorghiu 171
Dimitrie Bolintineanu ’s Exile within the Francophone
Cultural Space Floriana Popescu 182

Romania as Exile: Stereotyping the Other in
Maude Rea Parkinson ’s Twenty Years in
Roumania
Oana Celia Gheorghiu
Résumé: Partant de l’hypothèse que, même si elle n’est pas déterminée par
des contraintes externes, la migration peut, le plus souvent, entraîner un
sentiment d’aliénation du pays d’origine et dans le pays d’accueil en même
temps, cet article se concentre sur les mémoires écrits en 1921 par
l’irlandaise Maude Rea Parkinson après son séjour de vingt ans en
Roumanie pour analyser la manière dont l’altéri té est interprétée au niveau
mental. Investiguant ce texte d’une perspective imagologique, on arrive à la
conclusion que, bien qu’elle prétend être animée par la xénophilie, cette
représentante d’une culture occidentale tend à représenter l’altérité des
roumains par des images négatives et stéréotypiques.
Mots -clés: l’autre, aliénation, Occident/Orient, imagologie, acculturation.
1. Introduction
In its primary sense, based on its etymology (Lat. exsilium –
banishment), exile is said to signify “the state o f being barred from
one’s native country, typically for political or punitive reasons” (OED).
Focus is laid on punitive or coercive aspects; that brings exile very
close to the Greek form of banishment during the Athenian Democracy
(roughly the fifth and f ourth centuries BCE), namely ostracism. In
modern times, the term ’exile’ has been associated with the personal
choice of leaving one’s country due to political constraints and the
inherent interdiction to return. Experiences like totalitarianism in the
Eastern European bloc seem to have fixed this second meaning.
However, in its broader sense, exile may apply to any conscious or
unconscious departure from one’s personal space, no matter if it
involves an actual relocation. In other words, people may feel as exiles
even in their country of origin, if their beliefs differ from the official
ideological frame or the mental patterns of the majority. Along the same
lines, one may choose the actual exile by relocating to

172 Communication inte rculturelle et littérature
another space without enforcements from any political, religious or
social impositions. Various reasons – economic, social, etc. – make
then the return impossible and the displacement begins to feel like
coercion.
This is the reason why the present investigation starts from the
premise that the Irish Maude Rea Parkinson ’s stay in Romania from
1889 to the outburst of the First World War may be regarded as
self-imposed exile, although her reasons for choosing Romania as an
’adoptive’ country had been determined rather by a sense of adventure
than by any political, social or economic justifications:
Some Viennese acquaintances of mine had visited Bucharest, and from
them I had gained an alluring impression of a wonderful race of people,
rich in the primitive virtues, dwelling in a charming country and amidst
scenes of Oriental luxury. I will frankly admit that the glamour of the
Arabian Nights was over all my thoughts and ideas about Romania
[Parkinson, 1921: 18] .
Upon her return to the United Kingdom, Maude Parkinson writes a
memoir entitled Twenty Years in Roumania , published in 1921. Her
intention, announced in the Preface, is “to give English readers an
insight into the character of the people, and enable them to find there
[…] a great deal to love” [ Ibid., 5]. As this paper will strive to prove,
her memoir, though generally positive in remarks and intentions, bears
the sign of otherness in its each and every line, an otherness which the
authoress acknowledges, unsurprisingly, not as her definitive trait in
her relations with the Romanians, but, on the contrary, as a mark of the
representatives of the Romanian people whom she encounters.
Therefore, the aim of this article is to demonstrate that the
representatio n of the other, with regard to ethnic or national groups,
depends, to a great extent, on the writer’s sense of belonging to a
Western culture.
2. Image Studies or the critical reading
of the conceptualization of alterity
Based on “the dynamics between those images which characterise
the other (hetero -images) and those which characterise one’s own,
domestic identity (self -images or auto -images)” [Leerssen, 2007: 27],

Exil și interferențe culturale 173
travel accounts have been the main form of representing the experience
of alterity since the early writings of Classical Antiquity (e.g.
Herodotus, Strabo, Diodorus of Sicily, etc.), which make the clear -cut
distinction between Gree ks – a projection of a refined and civilised self
– and barbarians – seen as the less civilised other, perceived, more often
than not, negatively. However, they found their most refined expression
in the Western European literature of the eighteenth and ni neteenth
centuries, which the text here in focus follows closely, despite its
publication in a period of full modernist bloom.
A simple and clear definition of imagology as a critical reading is
provided in Eugenia Gavriliu ’s Theory and Practice of Imagolo gy:
Experiencing the Other in Anglo -Romanian Cultural Encounters .
Thus, imagology is “the study of the representations of the foreign
other in a literary work, in a national literature, or in the mental
structures prevailing in a cultural community at a gi ven historical
moment in its evolution” [2002: 5]. As apparent from this definition,
the Romanian scholar starts from the fictional mirror viewed in its
discrete components – “in a literary work” – and as a whole – “in a
national literature”. Yet, focus sh ould be laid first and foremost on
mental structures because, as Joep Leerssen remarks, “texts that say
something on national character frequently rely, not on a first -hand
observation of reality, but almost always on an existing reputation”
[imagologica.e u, 1998]. Thus, the representation of national characters
follows patterns of thought accumulated in many generations. This
view is also shared by Dyserinck [2003], who claims that “images and
imagotypical1 structures managed to stay alive for generations by their
very consistency and resistance”.
The French authority in Comparative Literature Daniel Henri
Pageaux explains the concept of image as emerging from “I versus
Other , Here versus Elsewhere ” [2007: 29]. According to him, the
image is the representation of a cultural reality in which cultural and
ideological spaces are revealed and translated. This social imaginary is
marked by an identity/ alterity bipolarity; however, alterity is not only
opposing, but also complementary to identity [2007: 29]. Further, he
identifies four types of attitudes that an individual may develop in the
relationship with an observed culture: mania (the tendency to consider
the foreign culture as superior to the base culture), phobia (the
perception of the examined other as inferior), philia (positive
judgement of the other seen as equal, although different) and one

174 Communication interculturelle et litt érature
aiming at cultural unity within national groups (e.g., Pan -Slavism,
Pan-Europeanism, etc.) [Pageaux in Gavriliu, 2002: 6 -8].
In ’Imagology: History and Method ’ [2007: 27 -29], Joep Leerssen
synthetizes a few principles of imagology which both confer
justification for the presence of image studies among the literary studies
(famously denied by René Wellek in the 1950s2) and, at the same,
create a methodological frame for an imagological analysis. Thus, what
needs stated from the beginning is that imagology is a theory of national
stereotypes and not one of national identity, being concerned with
representations. The attributes of a given nation are not anthropological
or sociological data, but textual tropes circulating in a certain context,
from the perspective of the spectant (examiner). The imagologist
should bear in mind that imagology addresses a set of characteristics
outside the factual statements. (For example, he says, “France is a
republic” is not a statement that may be analysed with an imagological
grid, whil st “Frenchmen are individualist” is.) An imagological
analysis should begin from the identification of the intertextual
connections of the national representation as a trope: “What is the
tradition of the trope? What traditions of appreciation or depreciat ion
are there, and how do these two relate historically?” Furthermore, the
trope must be integrated in its context of occurrence with respect to the
type of text that contains it (e.g. narrative, descriptive, humorous,
propagandistic, etc.), the audience t argeted and the historical
background of the moment of text production and/or reception. What
has to be further taken into account is the so -called imageme (a term
also coined by Leerssen3) or national cliché, but also the auto -image,
i.e., the representation which the examining I has acquired about his/her
own nation.
3. Twenty years in Ro umania: zero
acculturation and self -imposed exile
among the Others
According to the Canadian sociologist John Berry [2003], the
accul turation process represents a shift in the behaviour of an
individual exposed to a different culture. The choice of a particular
acculturative strategy reflects the attitude that an individual assumes
towards both his/her native heritage and the host cultu re. He identifies

Exil și interferențe culturale 175
four possible directions: assimilation – the desire to identify with the host
culture, occurring especially in situations in which the individual belongs to a
’minor culture’ or a minority group; separation – when the individual avoids
interaction with the representatives of the host culture; marginalisation – the
individual shows little involvement in learning about other cultures, and
integration – when the in dividual holds an interest in both his/her heritage
values and in participating in other culture(s) [in Organista et al, 2010: 110].
The sociological perspective has been considered relevant for the present case
study, as the text in focus represents an un mediated, subjective experience of
its authoress, revealing little interest in acquiring literariness, despite the fact
that it belongs to the memorialistic genre.
As she states it, Maude Parkinson arrives in Bucharest in 1889, after having
travelled across Western Europe, aiming to work here as a teacher of foreign
languages [1921: 6]. She will work in a few private schools in Bucharest, but
also as a governess for the children of the future Prime Minister Take Ionescu.
It may be said that she had access to the highest circles of the Romanian
high-class at the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the
twentieth century. One might wonder, under such circu mstances and
considering her statement that she had spent the happiest years of her life here,
why she did not at least try to learn the Romanian language, except for a few
disparate words, most of them misspelt: batiusi, dulchatza, tzuika, hora, dot
(dowr y), Mărțișoara, randasch, Cocănița or Cocoiana (the lady of the house),
serat mana etc. One cannot reasonably assert that she was completely
uninterested in accessing the host culture, as the thirty -three chapters of her
memoir touch upon each and every to pic of interest in the analysis of a given
culture: geography, history, literature, mentality, religion, traditions, the royal
family, politics (both domestic and foreign affairs), minorities and social,
economic and cultural life. By isolating herself, co nstantly choosing the
company of other British expats, and by her refusal to learn the Romanian
language despite her twenty -year stay, Maude Parkinson seems to have
adopted the marginalisation attitude from the scheme presented above.
However, this would b e only a hasty conclusion that would disregard the
historical context of the time, when the Romanian language was treated as
secondary by the Romanians themselves:
Life in Bucharest is very agreeable, especially for foreigners, and more
particularly for th e English, who are looked up to and admired by the

176 Communication interculturelle et litt érature
Romanians. Many of our customs have been adopted in recent years, and
English has gained so enormously since the war that it will probably soon
take the place of French as the polite language of the country. It is curious
that with the better -class Romanians it has become more fashionable than
their own language. If one enters a drawing -room, a shop, or even a very
intim ate family circle, English or French will be heard, very seldom
Romanian which language is usually left to the servants [1921: 56].
One cannot refer to the British -Romanian relationships at the turn of the
century in the terms in which they are referred to nowadays, when the Brits are
geared through stereotypical imagery of the Romanian other towards
xenophobic stances by the media. Instead, as the Irish authoress observes, at
that time, the British showed rather ignorance with regard to the Romanian
cultur e: “When I announced my intention of going to Roumania, I occasioned
real consternation amongst my friends. ’Why, you must be quite mad to think
of going so far away to a country of which nobody knows anything at all’ was
one of the mildest criticisms of m y project” [Parkinson, 17]. To Parkinson,
Romania is a mirage and by far more Oriental than it actually was, even at that
time, shortly after the War of Independence from the Ottoman yoke (1877).
The memoir depicts surprise at the ignorance of the authores s’ compatriots
with regard to a country which is, after all, European and an ally of the British
Empire:
In the preceding chapter I have given some indication of how little was
known of Roumania a quarter of a century ago, but it is still more
astonishing to find in these days of enlightenment what hazy ideas people
in this country have about the land and its inhabitants. I received a letter
once addressed to “Bucharest, Turkey”. Staying for a few weeks one
summer at Sinaia, a letter was sent to me from Eng land addressed simply
’Sinaia’. When it reached me some months later, the envelope was a
curiosity. I still keep it as a proof of the perseverance of post -office
officials. It bears the post -marks of Italy, Switzerland, Turkey, and, all
these failing, it h ad been dispatched to Simla [Parkinson, 24].
In this context, it may seem rather difficult to integrate Romanianness in a
predetermined trope, as Leerssen and Dyserinck suggest, as the intercultural
encounters had been rather scarce before the period in focus. From this
perspective, Maude Parkinson ’s memoir would become all the more relevant
as it plays a significant role in the construction of the stereotype. Indeed, sh e
arrived to Bucharest with

Exil și interferențe culturale 177
the preconceived idea that she was coming to an uncivilised, Oriental
country, and her initial remarks seem to confirm this view: “when we
reached the Romanian frontier, I really became a little alarmed for the
first time” [1921: 21]; “What a dreadful town! I thought, as I was driven
at a speed reminiscent of the Dublin jarvey through narrow, atrociously
paved streets, filled both as to road and footway with half -melted snow”
[Parkinson, 22]. The contrast between West and East is thus established
through the observation about the gloomy Eastern city. Parkinson
refers quite often to her original culture; she makes comparisons,
always careful no t to offend her Romanian friends and sometimes even
in favour of the host culture (“When, after my long absence from
England, I compare our own methods and ways of thought with those
which have become so familiar to me in Romania, the latter do not always
suffer in the comparison” [Parkinson 1921: 5]). She resorts,
nevertheless, to a series of stereotypes which she brought to Romania
with her. It is interesting to note that, to her mind, all these stereotypes are
eventually proven real by her personal exper ience.
The Balkans have become, starting with the beginning of the
twentieth century, the other of Europe, or, as the Bulgarian historian
Maria Todorova remarks, “a synonym for a reversion to the tribal, the
backward, the primitive, the barbarian” and a pl ace whose “inhabitants
do not care to conform to the standards of behaviour devised as
normative by and for the civilised world” [2009: 3]. This perception is
still valid now, so it would not be surprising if the Irish woman writer
had accessed this cultur al space from a prejudiced standpoint and
without any geopolitical knowledge of Romania’s position in or outside
the Peninsula. Notwithstanding, she proves awareness in this respect
and even cites from Romanian authoritative figures of the age:
I may here incidentally remark that D. Stourdza in one of his articles
strongly repudiates the assumption that Romania is one of the Balkan
States. This view does not however, by any means, meet the general
acceptance. In conversation recently with a highly -placed Ro manian of
scholarly attainment, this gentleman argued convincingly that Romania is,
beyond doubt, one of the Balkan States. Every great movement in the
Balkans, he pointed out, has originated in Romania or has, at least, been
participated in by that countr y [Parkinson, 1921: 243].
Despite the generally positive attitude towards her host culture,
Maude Parkinson does not overcome the prejudice of her cultural
heritage when it comes to ethnic minorities, to which she attaches

178 Communication interculturelle et litt érature
racist, anti -Semite and xenophobic stereotypes. She dedicates an entire
chapter to Jews [1921: 82 -88], whom she describes as rapacious
moneylenders and merchants who would tear to pieces “the
unsophisticated peasant who ventures to go alone to that
neighbourhood [Lipscani Street] to buy some article of clothing” [1921:
83]. Also, the peasant (who is always presented as naïve, not to say
stupid) should consider himself fortunate “if he gets out of the Jew’s
hands still having a roof over his head” [ Ibid. 84]. She cannot refrain
from anti -Semite remarks even when she quotes official statistics from
the census: “The Jews, who, like the poor, are always with us , will
continue to be represented by a million of their race” [ Ibid 254, my
emphasis]. The gypsies are looked down with a sort of amusement: “I
have never yet seen a gypsy with new clothes on. They would seem
quite out of place. Rags and gypsies seem somehow to belong to each
other” [ Ibid. 143]; they have “comical figures”, while their children are
“picturesque and would delight the eye of an artist” [ Ibid. 149]. She
notices, however, that “gypsies as a class have not a good reputation for
honesty; therefore, if any are seen near one’s hous e, a sharp look -out
must be kept” [ Ibid. 150]. In both cases, her observations seem
influenced by local prejudice but also ’imported’ from the Albion.
She is ready at all times to mock various religious traditions and
superstitions, which she sees as ridic ulous. Also, she depicts a
condescending attitude towards peasants, servants, beggars and other
socially -challenged categories, but all her remarks seem to originate in
class prejudice, and not in national prejudice, in which case they would
not be of inte rest for the present paper.
It would be misleading and even unfair if this paper did not provide a
few examples of the positive remarks the Irish writer makes about the
Romanian others. At this point, it may seem like her attitude is rather
xenophobic, des pite her claims that some of the best friends she had in
the world were Romanian, who helped her and showed her “kindness
and sympathy” [Parkinson 1921: 5]. Worried that her Romanian friends
might “find cause for offence” in her memoir, she states that she would
rather tear it to pieces: “rather than be suspected of repaying such
kindness by holding up my friends to ridicule, I would tear up these
pages which I – a tyro in the art of letters – have written with so much
labour, but also, I must add, with so much pleasure” [ Ibid. 6]. These
many precautions that Maude Parkinson takes in the Preface are
indicative of the fact that she is fully aware

Exil și interferențe culturale 179
that some of her assertions might be con sidered offensive. However,
she finds a convenient refuge in yet another national stereotype – this
time, a positive one: “then I remember that they have a sense of humour
and the doubt vanishes” [ Ibid 5].
The positive stereotypes fit, in general, the auto -image that the
Romanians have about themselves. In Maude ’s eyes, they are warm –
hearted, “hospitable to an extraordinary extent”, “extremely charitable
and invariably courteous and polite” [249], very proud of their ’race’: “it
was this pride which rendered the Germanisation of Romania an
impossible task even for King Charles to accomplish, and which the
enemy had to reckon with in the last war” [i.e., the First World War] [ Ibid
248-249]. The Romanian women are beautiful and eleg ant, although their
taste is acquired, as “they are always ready to profit by the example of
others who may be more advanced in some directions than themselves”
[249]. Thus, she asserts that the Romanian ladies know how to dress and
“as every article of cl othing comes from Paris, their taste is surely to be
guided aright” [ Ibid 122]. (Mention should be made that the image of the
French as arbiters of elegance is equally stereotypical.) The question in
which the Romanians’ views about themselves part ways wi th the
foreigner lady’s opinions concerns the former’s diligence. To Parkinson,
the Romanians are characterised by national indolence, “ laisser -aller
which hinders endeavour” and “disinclination to engage in industrial or
commercial occupations, so long re sponsible for failure to develop the
resources of the country” [ Ibid 248].
Apart from great figures like King Charles I, Prince Ferdinand or
Take Ionescu, to whom she shows great respect and whose political
skills she is ready to applaud at all times, Maud e Parkinson, is usually
dismissive about politics in Romania. Thus, she describes in great
details the process of elections, with its electoral frauds ( “names of
people long dead are inserted in the register”) and intimidations:
“electioneering agents […] employ gangs of men (known as batiusi )
who, armed with big sticks, are posted at the entrance to the polling
booths, frankly for the purpose of intimidating those who refuse to vote
as their party wishes” [Parkinson 1921: 36]). She is ironic about the
chan ges that take place in Romania after elections, when the winning
party replaces all the people in an institution, starting with the doorman
or “the man who runs the nearest café for the cup of afternoon coffee”
[37]. She finds laughable – and even alludes to the difference of
opinions as to which end the egg should be broken in Swift’s Gulliver
Travels – the fact that the politicians revert the

180 Communication interculturelle et litt érature
established order in the least significant aspects: “if the Liberals have
adopted a sloping style of writing, Conservatives, upon assuming
power, are sure to insist upon the re -formation of the characters and the
setting of them up in a perpendicular position” [40]. The striking
resemblance with the present -day politics seems to suggest that the
Romanian political inability may not be a stereotype grounded in
western prejudice, but a pattern of behaviour that is, unfortunately, very
close to being factual.
It is this factuality and long -lastingness of the stereotype what
makes one wonder if the image one constructs at the mental level is
grounded exclusively in the acquired or inherited representation of the
other and in prejudiced observations. The present undertaking has
strived to find balance in the amount of positive and negative
stereotypes that Maude Rea Parkinson engages in her description of
Romania and its people. Her constant reassurances that her sole
intention is to make her compatriots love and understand the
Romanians the way she does, but also her positive remarks, are
indicative of the fact that the Irish woman does not intend to alter the
image of the Romanians in the west, but quite the contrary, to try to
improve it with her modest writing skills and through an appeal to
objectivity which is not always successful.
Although Maude Rea Parkinson ’s memoir is insightful with regard
to various aspects of the Romanian culture at the turn of the twentieth
century from the perspective of the foreign other, and although she
repeatedly claims that Romania was her second home for twenty years,
a westerner’s sense of superiority is obvious along her entire account.
Her ’exile’ is clearly a cultural, not a political one and may be
understood in two ways: she is exile d to a land which she perceives as
inferior to her own cultural space; consequently, she chooses a different
kind of exile: she seems to enjoy her position as the other and makes no
move in the direction of integration within the host culture. The
represen tative of a Western culture, the woman writer does not
completely accommodate with the ways of the Romanians and, though
not disdainful, her inclination to dwell on negative stereotyping may
become, at times, downright offensive for the Romanian reader.
Nonetheless, one should definitely take into consideration her
representation of Romanianness in the analysis of the
British -Romanian cross -cultural encounters.
Acknowledgement: The work of Oana Celia Gheorghiu was supported by
Project SOP HRD – PERFORM/159/ 1.5/S/138963.

Exil și interferențe culturale 181
References
Dyserinck, H., „Imagology and the Problem of Ethnic Identity”, in
Intercultural Studies, issue 1/2003 retrieved from http://www.inter
cultural -studies.org/IC1.html [7 December 2013].
Gavriliu, E., Theory and Practice of Imagology: Experiencing the Other in
Anglo -Romanian Cultural Encounters , Ed. Funda ției Universitare
„Dunărea de Jos”, Galați, 2002.
Leerssen, J., „Imagology: History a nd Method», in M. Beller and J. Leerssen
(eds.), Imagology: The Cultural Construction and
Literary Representation of National Characters. A Critical Survey ,
Rodopi, Amster dam, 2007, pp. 17 -32.
Leerssen, J., „The Rhetoric of National Character: A Programmatic Survey”,
in Poetics Today , 21: 2, 2000, pp. 267 -292. Leerssen, J., „National Identity
and National Stereotype” retrieved from
http://www.imagologica.eu/leerssen [7 December 2013].
Organista, P. B. et al., The Psychology of Ethnic Groups in the United States ,
SAGE, New York, 2010 Pageaux, D. H., Littératures et Cultures e n
Dialogue , L’Harmattan, Paris, 2007.
Parkinson, M. R., Twenty Years in Roumania, George Allen & Unwin, Ltd,
London, 1921.
Todorova, M., Imagining the Balkans , Oxford University Press, 2009.
Note
1 The term may be used interchangeably with stereotypical .
2 See also Dyserinck ’s comment on René Wellek’s critique of imagology:
“Exactly the interdisciplinary possibilities and ambitions of imagology, he
did not like at all. For him this was “rather a study of public opinion
useful, for instance, to a program director in the Voice of America”. Or
more in earnest: It was ‘national psychology, sociology…’ and so on. As a
matter of fact, he did not want to recognize the legitimacy of such
research as part of a larger concept of the study of literature. The basis of
these negative state ments was lying, of course, in Russian Formalism and
in the principles of New Criticism and the so -called ‘intrinsic study
of literature’.” (Dyserinck, H., ‘Imagology and the Problem of Ethnic
Identity’ in Intercultural Studies, issue 1/2003, par. 3)
3 In Leerssen ’s view, an imageme is “a ‘blueprint’ underlying the various
concrete, specific actualizations that can be textually encountered. […]
An imageme is the bandwidth of discursively established character
attributes concerning a given nationality and will take the form of the
ultimate cliché”. (Leerssen, J., ‘The Rhetoric of National Character: A
Programmatic Survey’ in Poetics Today , 21: 2, 2000, p. 279)