NATIONAL ATTITUDES OF ETHNIC HUNGARIANS FROM ROMANIA, SLOVAKIA, SERBIA [622127]

Licență

NATIONAL ATTITUDES OF ETHNIC HUNGARIANS FROM ROMANIA, SLOVAKIA, SERBIA [622127]

Byadmin ianuarie 1, 2024

Source:
Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai – Sociologia
Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai – Sociologia
Location:
Romania
Author(s):
Valér Veres
Title:
NATIONAL ATTITUDES OF ETHNIC HUNGARIANS FROM ROMANIA, SLOVAKIA, SERBIA
AND UKRAINE: A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE
NATIONAL ATTITUDES OF ETHNIC HUNGARIANS FROM ROMANIA, SLOVAKIA, SERBIA
AND UKRAINE: A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE
Issue:
1/2013
Citation
style:
Valér Veres. "NATIONAL ATTITUDES OF ETHNIC HUNGARIANS FROM ROMANIA,
SLOVAKIA, SERBIA AND UKRAINE: A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE". Studia
Universitatis Babes-Bolyai – Sociologia 1:87-112.
https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=25095
The Central and Eastern European Online Library
The joined archive of hundreds of Central-, East- and South-East-European publishers,
research institutes, and various content providers
You have downloaded a document from

CEEOL copyright 2020
CEEOL copyright 2020STUDIA UBB SOCIOLOGIA, LVIII, 1, 2013, pp. 87-112
(RECOMMENDED CITATION)

NATIONAL ATTITUDES OF ETHNIC HUNGARIANS FROM
ROMANIA, SLOVAKIA, SERBIA AND UKRAINE: A
COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE

VALÉR VERES1

ABSTRACT. The article comparatively analyses national identifications of Hungarian
minorities living in Romania, Slovakia, Serbia (Voivodina) and Ukraine, their
ethnic and national attitudes and intergroup relations, includi ng the ethno-
national minority – majority relationship, and attitudes toward s Hungary and the
Roma community. Of interest is the presence and extent of ingro up-outgroup
differentiation, and possible cr oss-national differences and si milarities in national
a t t i t u d e s , i d e n t i t y , a n d p e r c e i v e d s o c i a l d i s t a n c e . I e x a m i n e d the following two
research hypotheses: (1) The Hungarian community in a given cou ntry identifies
closer with other Hungarian communities living in the diaspora than with
Hungarians in Hungary, or the majoritarian population in their country of
citizenship. (2) Members of the Hungarian minorities generally perceive a greater
social distance in relation to the majority population of a par ticular country as
compared to Hungary’s population, but cross-country differences are likely. The
empirical data source of my research is the Karpat Panel survey , first wave
(2007), collected on multi-stratified random sample (N=2,915), representing the
Hungarian communities in Romania, Slovakia, Serbia and Ukraine, a s w e l l a s a
control sample from Hungary. I used a variety of statistical te chniques, including
OLS regression and multidimensional scaling – Alscal method bas ed on the average
values of social distances towards different ethnic and nationa l communities,
as well as other social groups – to analyse the relations of in terest.
Keywords: minority, attitudes, national identity, interethnic relations

Introduction

National attitudes are an important part of national identity. People use
them for orientation, to place other people in the social space , and they help or
hinder us to create “custom made” cognitive assessments during our orientation

1 Babeș-Bolyai University Cluj-Napoca, e-mail: [anonimizat] .

88 in the social space. Our image of national groups is conveyed b y culture and
national ideologies. These are confronted with everyday experie nces which
enforce, weaken or modulate our image of national groups.
T h i s p a p e r r e l i e s o n t h e c o n c e p t s o f a u t o a n d h e t e r o – s t e r e o t y p i ng as
auxiliary elements of national attitudes to examine national id entification of
Hungarian minorities living in four countries of Central and Ea stern Europe
(CEE): Romania, Slovakia, Serbia (Voivodina) and Ukraine. For e ach country, I
consider intergroup relations – that is, how Hungarian minorita rians view
Hungarian minorities in other countries than their own. At the s a m e t i m e , I
analyse their perceptions of (a) the majoritarian population, ( b) Hungarians in
Hungary – the “kin state,” and (c) Roma, a minority present in all the included
countries.
In CEE, the disintegration of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 19 18 left a
part of the population which identified with Hungarian ethnonat ionality outside
Hungary, to form a national minority in the new countries. Acco rding to recent
census data, the largest Hungarian minority population is to be found in Romania
(1,32 million), followed by Slovakia (458 thousand), Serbia (29 0 thousand)
and Ukraine (151 thousand)2 (see also Papp-Veres, 2007).
The Hungarian government, after the political regime change in 1989, has
a s s u m e d a s o – c a l l e d “ N a t i o n a l p o l i c y , ” w h i c h c a l l s f o r t h e H u n g arian state to
elaborate a strategy for improving the situation of Hungarians living outside
Hungary, to help them maintain their Hungarian identity and cul ture. Along this
line, the Hungarian Constitution stipulates: “The Hungarian sta te feels responsible
for Hungarians living outside its borders” (Art 6(3)). This “re sponsibility” is
guided by ethnocultural national ideology, and the so-called “S tatus Law” (2001)
has been adopted in its spirit. This law provided for the issua n c e o f s o c a l l e d
“Hungarian card” for foreign citizens who claim Hungarian as mo ther tongue, or
who consider themselves part of the Hungarian cultural communit y. The
“problem” of Hungarians living outside the borders has persiste d in Hungary.
Right-wing organizations have urged the Hungarian state to offe r Hungarian
citizenship to all persons living abroad who consider themselve s Hungarian
e v e n i f t h e y d o n o t i n t e n d t o m o v e t o H u n g a r y ( i . e . d o u b l e c i t i zenship). The
2004 referendum on this proposal did not meet validity requirem ents, due to
low voting turnout. Yes a n d no v o t e s w e r e a p p r o x i m a t e l y e q u a l l y s p l i t . T h e
results produced great consternati on among Hungarians in the di aspora (Culic
2006:175-200).

2 Systematic processings have not been published yet, but the pr eliminary results of the 2011
census from Romania are accessible on the web-page of the Natio nal Institute of Statistics, see
www.recensamant.ro [May 2013]. For details related to the Slovakian census see Gy urgyik,
2006, Balogová, B.: Census: Fewer Hungarians, Catholics – and Slovaks , The Slovak Spectator 5
Mar 2012.

89 These historical processes show that the issue of Hungarian min ority
in Hungary's neighbouring countries is of great concern in Hung ary, generating
important policy debates, and sometimes diplomatic tensions bet ween these
countries. Thus, the empirical analysis of the Hungarian minori ty identity and
their relationship with Hungary is of real interest.
Theoretical Considerations and Research Hypotheses

Gellner (1987) differentiates between two types of nation-build ing forms
proceeding from the relationship between social structure and c ulture. The first
one is the “ethnocultural nation”, formed in a stiff, yet compl ex, extended and
well-stratified society based on a farming, autarchic (self-suf ficient), and food-
producing community. Above them, there is a governing elite, wh ich—in alliance
with the ecclesiastical elite—monopolizes communication channel s and the
institutional instruments of using force; social mobility is no t characteristic. The
other type of nation is based on citizenship (civic nation), wh ich is formed in a
society based on more developed technology than the former one and with a
complex and refined division of labour. Social processes are ch aracterized by
social mobility (even for those working in agriculture), and ge neral education
becomes generalized relatively early (Gellner, 1987). In practi ce, A. D. Smith also
states, these models emerged in combination, but the dominant c haracteristics
of one or the other variant may be traced within the different nation-building
processes (Smith, 1991) National identity based on citizenship is primarily
characteristic to Western Europe. Ethno-cultural consciousness as defined by
Gellner is dominant in Eastern and Central Europe.
I define national identity as the stock of knowledge and attitudes composed
of affective and cognitive elements and formed collectively, wh ich is the result of
the social functioning of national ideology. It represents one of the most important
forms of attachment of modern social groups. I analyse the simp l e f o r m o f
national identity, so-called “natural national identity” presen t in the entire society.
The “natural national identity” – formulated by Csepeli – is a manifestation of the
social communication of the national ideology, when people in t heir everyday life
identify with certain elements of national ideology. In this wa y, they distinguish
the ingroup designated by the national category, they share the symbolic universe
created by the national name, fatherland, meanings of national symbols” (Csepeli,
1997:108). National consciousness and national ideology are coe xisting phenomena,
but not entirely the same; we are dealing with a dual phenomeno n in Hobsbawm’s
formulation, considering that knowledge of the content of offic ial national
ideologies does not supplement the national consciousness of av erage people in
everyday life (Hobsbawm, 1990:10-12).

90 Stereotyping one’s own group and other reference groups is a di mension
of collective identity. Usually, the stereotypical image of one 's group is positive,
whereas that of other groups is positive or negative to a varia ble degree.
According to Le Vine and Campbell (1972), national and ethnic g roups form a
positive picture about themselves based on certain fundamental personal
f e a t u r e s , a n d t h i s i s c a l l e d a u t o s t e r e o t y p e . I f t h e r e i s a c o n f lict or some kind of
tension between one’s own group and another reference group, th e other group is
lik ely to be veste d with neg ative chara cterist ics an d anti pathy . This is called
general heterostereotype, which refers to certain fundamental p ersonal, moral,
and motivational features. The affective attitudes towards diff erent reference
groups are analysed in this article.
As for the relationship between ethnocultural groups, I do not consider
that using hetero-sterotypes is harmful, or that ethnocentrism should eliminate
cosmopolitanism. I agree with Calhoun who suggested that „cultu re and social
relationships are as real as individuals, even if they lack bod ies”, and criticized the
“ e x t r e m e c o s m o p o l i t a n i s m ” t h a t p r o m o t e s t h e e l i m i n a t i o n o f a l l loyalties lesser
than that of each individual to humanity as a whole (Calhoun, 2 003: 531-553).
In this paper I also analyse Hungarian minoritarins’ attitudes towards the
Roma. The definitions of Roma minorities were discussed, among others, by Troc
(2012) in one of his recent writings, where he differentiates a definition from
a „majority” view (Troc, 2012: 79). This approach was prevalent in the ways
Hungarians living in all countries defined the Roma. Namely, th ey focused on
p a r t i c u l a r c o m m u n i t i e s a n d c o n c e i v e d R o m a e t h n i c i t y a s b e i n g s p ecific to
indigenous or allogeneic groups that were historically and stru cturally marginalized
by majority ethnic/national groups and who developed in respons e reactive
identities and culture/cultures (Williams, 1984; Stewart, 1997) .
I n R o m a n i a a n d S l o v a k i a ( t h e c o u n t r i e s w i t h t h e l a r g e s t s h a r e o f Roma
minority), but also in Serbia and Ukraine, the identity and gro up dynamics specific
t o t h e R o m a m i n o r i t y s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r f r o m t h e H u n g a r i a n m i nority not only
because of the lack of a determined external „kin state” as Hun gary in the case of
Hungarians, but also because they can be politically mobilised in a completely
different way. Although there are Roma social and political org anisations, these
are not successful in taking action in a uniform way or in ideo logically or
politically mobilising the majority of the Roma community. Cons equently, the
influence of the Roma elite on their own community is also weak and fragmented,
as opposed to the Hungarian minority.
The characteristics of the ethnocultural national identity are still
predominant in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE), and I will ana l y s e h o w i t
functions in intergroup attitudes, in Hungarian minority cases. As Brubaker said,
i n t h e c a s e o f C e n t r a l a n d E a s t e r n E u r o p e a n n a t i o n a l m i n o r i t i e s , the ideological
field, which shapes national identities, has three main sources : the so-called “kin

91 states” undertaking cultural protection, the national ideologie s of majority states,
and the ideological elements formulated by the leading elite of a national minority.
These are only valid if there is a well-defined ethnocultural m ajority in a given
state (Brubaker, 1996: 60-69).
In line with Brubaker, I do not interpret nation as a real enti ty, community
or substantial and stable collective, but rather as an imagined c o m m u n i t y a s
defined by Anderson (1991). Instead of answering the question „ what is nation?”,
I am rather searching for an answer to the question „how is the idea of nation
institutionalised as political and cultural form within the sta t e a n d b e t w e e n
states, respectively?”
Another question refers to when and due to which factors the ma nifestations
of national identity are transformed into nationalism. Accordin g to Brubaker,
nationalism is not induced through „nation”, but through partic ular manifestations
of the political sphere (Brubaker, 1996: 13–17). Verdery points out that all this
might happen in the cultural or political sphere as well. Accor ding to Verdery’s
definition, „nationalism is using the symbolic content of natio n in an emotionally
exalted form for political reasons” (Verdery, 1993: 77–95). Yet , in parallel with
this political use, nationalism results in national ideological discourses that also
hold an influence on other spheres of life. In as much as these are reflected in the
national identity of individuals, we may talk about national id entity loaded with
nationalistic or ethnocentric elements. Thus, in our research, we investigate why
Hungarian minority populations display more ethnocentric elemen ts in their
identities and social attitudes.
Ethno-cultural consciousness may transform into civic national
consciousness. This was pointed out by Kuzio (2002), listing th e conditions
which strengthen it: domestic democratic consolidation, buildin g o f l o c a l c i v i c
institutions, positive influence of international institutions, and when the core
ethnic group is self-confident within its own bounded territory (Kuzio, 2002). The
q u e s t i o n i s i f t h e s e f u n c t i o n i n m i n o r i t y s i t u a t i o n s a n d i n w h a t ways, which
national consciousness is transformed so as to show civic chara cteristics.
P r e v i o u s p a p e r s o n t h e n a t i o n a l i d e n t i t y o f H u n g a r i a n m i n o r i t i e s,
especially in the case of the more numerous Hungarian populatio ns from Romania
and Slovakia, have shown that the members of these minority gro ups do not
identify themselves, emotionally and symbolically, with the Rom anian or
Slovakian majority of their resp ective countries, while being a Hungarian has a
strong positive content (pride, symbols, ethnocentrism) (See Cu lic, 1999; Csepeli-
Örkény-Székelyi, 2000; Veres, 2005). In 1999 Culic pointed out that the identity of
minority persons presupposes a complex, double sense of belongi ng: a formal,
legal one, which is prescribed by citizenship, and a cultural, emotional bond
through which they are attached to another ethno-cultural natio n whose
formation is linked to another state. This duality entails dual ity at the level of
group loyalties, human relationships, attitudes and opinions as well (Culic, 1999: 37).

92 Based on H. Tajfel’s studies, we know that a positive social id entity has an
important role in the survival of a minority community without being culturally
assimilated (Tajfel, 1978). My previous research has already co nfirmed that
Hungarians have a positive self-image and the feeling of nation al pride is high, on
average, among Hungarians living in minority, especially in Tra nsylvania (Veres,
2000; 2005; 2010)
In this analysis I will not discuss the entire minority Hungari an identity,
but I will highlight and analyse one aspect, using a comparativ e method. I focus on
the functioning – as defined by Barth (1969) – of group identit y boundaries
specific to Hungarian minority communities from each country an d region under
the category of ethnoculturally based, transfrontier „imagined” (Anderson, 1991)
Hungarian nation and on its social-demographic characteristics.
T h e q u e s t i o n o f i n t e r e s t i s “ h o w d o p e o p l e b e l o n g i n g t o t h e H u ngarian
minorities in Romania, Slovakia, Serbia and Ukraine, respective ly, relate to and
differ from Hungarians in the diaspora and from the majoritaria n population of
their respective countries when interethnic attitudes that impl y social distance
are considered?”;Are there any similar patterns? The correspond ing research
hypotheses are:
First, the Hungarian community in a given country identifies cl oser with
other Hungarian communities living in the diaspora than with Hu ngarians in
Hungary, or the majoritarian population in their country of cit izenship. Second,
Hungarian minoritarians generally perceive a greater social dis tance in relation to
the majority population in their country of citizenship than to Hungarians in
Hungary, but country-differences can be expected due to histori cal reasons.

Data and Methods

The empirical data source of my research is the project Karpat Panel,
wave 2007.3 In 2007, a multi-stratified random sample composed of 2,930
persons was selected from Hungarian communities living in five countries (valid
N = 2,915): 900 cases in Romania (Transylvania region), 585 cas es in Slovakia,
380 cases in Serbia (Vojvodina), 350 cases from Ukraine (Transc arpathia region),
and 700 cases in Hungary, as a control sample.

3 The institutions coordinating this research project are the fo llowing: Minority Research Institute of
the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (MTA NKI, Hungary) and the Ma x Weber Foundation for
S o c i a l R e s e a r c h , C l u j – N a p o c a ( R o m a n i a ) P a r t n e r s : B a b e s – B o l y a i U niversity Cluj, Dept. Sociology
(Ro), Forum Institute (Slovakia), T. Lehotczky Institute (Zacar patija, Ukraine), Research
c o o r d i n a t o r s : A t t i l a P a p p , V a l é r V e r e s , d i r e c t o r : L á s z l ó S z a r k a . The survey was financed by
Hungarian Academy for Sciences and the research was supported b y Bolyai János scholarship
(2008-2010). The next Karpat Panel wave took place in 2010, but only in Romania.

93 R e s p o n d e n t s w e r e s e l e c t e d i f t h e y s p o k e H u n g a r i a n . T h e q u e s t i o n naire
also had questions on national/ethnic self-identification. We a sked respondents
t o i n d i c a t e , i n o r d e r , t h e c o m m u n i t i e s t h e y f e l t t h e y b e l o n g e d to, and we
processed the first mentioned answers. The main features of so called “natural
n a t i o n a l i d e n t i t y ” ( C s e p e l i , 1 9 9 7 ) o f e t h n i c H u n g a r i a n s f r o m R o mania, Slovakia,
Ukraine and Serbia was presented in Veres (2010).
To measure ingroup-outgroup, I use the following questionnaire items:
1. In your opinion, the Hungarians from Hungary have other persona l
features than the Hungarians from the minority from Romania/Slo vakia
/Serbia/Ukraine?
2. In your opinion, the majority community
(Romanian/Slovakian/Serbian/Ukrainian) have other characteristi cs
than the Hungarian minority (from Romania/Slovakia/Serbia/Ukrai ne)?
I use a five-level scale of attitudes of like/dislike towards s pecific groups
to capture the distance between the Hungarian minority and othe r social groups.
The question was: How do you see the following groups? Answer-options ranged
from 1 to 5, where 1=very agreeable, 2=rather agreeable, 3=neut ral (neither
agreeable, nor disagreeable), 4=rather disagreeable, and 5=very disagreeable (the
largest distance). I examine these attitudes also by respondent s’ socio-
demographic characteristics: gender, type of settlement, age, e ducational level,
and language of instruction in school.
Interethnic relations (i.e. perceived interethnic conflict and cooperation)
were measured by question: How is the relationship between the Hungarian
minority and the majority (Romanians etc) in country/local level? The answer-
options were the following: 1= conflict, 2=neutral, 3=cooperati on. For some of the
analyses, I have collapsed these three categories into a dummy variable for
conflict, where conflict=1, else=0.
The analysis has involved various statistical techniques, inclu ding OLS
regression and multidimensional scaling. In the regression anal ysis, the dependent
variable has been the 5-point scale of attitudes towards the ma joritarian
population. The independent vari ables has been: age, dummies fo r gender (men=1),
settlement type (urban=1), education (tertiary education and hi gh school=1,
lower=0), Hungarian as instruction language (in high school or last level of
completed schooling Hungarian =1, else =0) ethnocentrism, perce ption of
conflict relations with the majoritarian population country-wid e (conflict=1),
interethnic relations on local level (conflict=1), and perceive d ethnic discrimination
(if respondents experienced ethn ic discrimination because of th eir ethnonationality =
1, else =0).
I constructed the measure of ethnocentrism with Principal Compo nent
Analysis using the set of items listed below. Respondents were asked whether the
following statements are valid for Hungarians, and “yes” answer s were coded
with “1”.

94 1. There is no other nation which has given so many scientists and artists to
the world.
2. It is amazing to see how solidary this nation is in times of danger.
3. This nation suffered a lot du ring history, yet it was able t o maintain its identity.
4. This nation has always been the front-line fighter of civili zation in Europe.
Regarding multidimensional scaling, I have used the Alscal meth od to
create two-dimensional models based on the average values of at titudes towards
different ethnic and national minorities, as well as other soci al groups, in order to
reveal the differences between attitude structures in the count ries analysed.

Results

Perceived ingroup boundaries
I n e a c h o f t h e a n a l y s e d c o u n t r i e s , t h e m a j o r i t y o f r e s p o n d e n t s consider
t h a t m e m b e r s o f t h e i r H u n g a r i a n m i n o r i t y g r o u p h a v e d i f f e r e n t p ersonal
characteristics than Hungarians from Hungary, whereas 34.6% of Hungarians
from Slovakia, 25.5% of Hungarians from Vojvodina, and 21.9% of Hungarians
from Transcarpathia and Transylvania consider that these charac teristics are the
same. Hence, one can notice that Hungarians in the diaspora rep resent themselves
as a distinct group from Hungarians living in Hungary. For the latter, the reverse
holds: 51.1% do not see a difference in terms of personal chara cteristics between
themselves and Hungarians in the diaspora, whereas 41.5% consid er that the two
groups are different (see Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. In your opinion, the Hungarians from Hungary have other characteristics
than the Hungarians from the minority from Romania/Slovakia/Serbia/Ukraine?
* In the case of Hungary, the qu estion referred to the Transylv anian Hungarians.

95

Fig. 2. In your opinion, the majority community (Romanian/Slovakian/
Serbian/Ukrainian) have other personal characteristics than the
Hungarian minority (from Romania/Slovakia/Serbia/Ukraine)?

The results are similar when members of the Hungarian minority reflect
on the personal characteristics of the majoritarian population in their country of
citizenship. Generally, the proportion of “yes” answers is grea ter when the reference
is group the majoritarian population, than when it is Hungarian s in Hungary.
Transylvania is the exception (see Fig. 2).

Social attitudes and social distance
Table 1 reports averages values on a 5-points scale that measur es social
distance from different groups, including ethnic ones (where 1= smallest distance
and 5=greatest distance). For one’s own group, the averages are below 2; for
Hungarians from Hungary, averages vary between 2.6 and 2.4, whe reas Hungarian
minority respondents’ attitudes towards majority groups have av erages between
2.5 to 2.7. This indicates a rather neutral stance. Again, when we look at the
Transylvania region in Romania, there is basically no differenc e in how ethnic
Hungarians evaluate ethnic Romanians (mean=2.5), and how they e valuate
Hungarians from Hungary (mean=2.4). The largest and statistical ly significant
difference occurs in Slovakia, where the mean value for Hungari ans from Hungary
is 2.0, whereas the mean value for ethnic Slovaks is 2.7.
The case of Slovakia, as compared to Romania, is also noteworth y as it
shows a change from earlier studies. Analyses on the 1997 Karpa t Research,
Csepeli, Örkény and Székelyi (2000: 45, 78) found the social di stance between the
Hungarian minority and the majority in Slovakia to be lower tha n for Romania
(Csepeli, Örkény, and Székelyi 2000: 78).

96 Table 1.
Ethnic Hungarians’ Attitudes towards Different Social and
Ethno-national Groups, Mean Values, by Countries

Hungarian community from:
Hungary Romania Ukraine Slovakia Serbia Total
Majority nation (Ro, Ukr, Sk, Sb) 2.51 2.59 2.71 2.61 2.59
Hungarians (Hu) 1.99 2.39 2.37 2.01 2.37 2.20
Roma 3.25 3.17 3.46 3.53 3.13 3.29
Jews 2.84 2.90 2.95 2.99 2.88 2.91
Germans 2.71 2.69 2.92 2.88 2.61 2.76
Chinese 3.18 2.97 3.08 3.14 2.98 3.08
Transylvanian (RO) Hungarians 2.29 1.80 2.34 2.06 2.20 2.09
Serbian Hungarians 2.37 2.20 2.42 2.13 1.84 2.20
Slovakian Hungarians 2.40 2.22 2.38 1.83 2.26 2.21
Ukrainian Hungarians 2.41 2.21 1.72 2.08 2.27 2.18
Unemployed people 2.76 2.89 2.91 3.02 2.76 2.87
Asylum seekers 3.00 2.70 3.01 3.07 3.49 3.00
Homosexuals 3.76 4.16 4.29 3.85 3.95 3.99
Skinheads 4.16 4.28 4.43 4.40 4.24 4.28
Drug addicts 4.24 4.45 4.64 4.38 4.41 4.40
Entrepreneurs 2.82 2.87 2.79 2.85 2.79 2.84
New rich 3.41 3.26 3.23 3.53 3.58 3.39
Security guards 2.76 2.82 2.82 2.97 2.93 2.85
Note: The question was: How do you see the following groups? The answer-options ranged on a scale
from 1 to 5, with the following coding: 1=very agreeable, 2=rat her agreeable, 3=neutral
(neither agreeable, nor disagreeable), 4=rather disagreeable, a nd 5=very disagreeable
(the largest distance).

Table 1 consistently shows that Hungarians in the diaspora feel closest to
people like themselves, that is, other Hungarians living outsid e Hungary. They
form a separate group, distinguishable from both Hungarians in Hungary, and
from the majoritarian population. A significant part of respond ents also declared
to be members of the national majority (Veres, 2010). From a so cial-psychological
perspective these results may be interpreted in the sense that Hungarian regional
m e m b e r s h i p h a s a s t r o n g e r n o r m a t i v e a n d c o h e s i v e p o w e r t h a n H u n garian
statehood, or citizenship of the country where the Hungarian mi nority lives.

97 Table 2.
Ethnic Hungarians’ Attitudes towards Majoritariam Populations,
Hungarians from Hungary, and the Roma: Mean Values by
Socio-Demographic Variables and Countries
Romania Slovakia
Gender Romanians Hungarians
from HungaryRoma Slovakians Hungarians
from Hungary Roma
Men 2.53 2.43 3.22 2.80** 2.13 3.53
Women 2.49 2.33 3.12 2.63** 1.91 3.53
Settlement type
Rural 2.52 2.30** 3.08* 2.73 2.04 3.52*
Urban 2.50 2.46** 3.26* 2.65 1.97 3.73*
Age groups
18-29 2.60* 2.44* 3.39** 2.86** 2.08* 3.58*
30-44 2.64* 2.54* 3.20 2.72 2.10 3.72
45-64 2.46 2.33 3.06 2.72 1.94 3.54
65 and over 2.45* 2.28* 3. 15** 2.60** 1.99* 3.32*
Education level
Elementary 2.47 2.28* 3.06 2.65 1.93 3.33
Vocational 2.64 2.58 3.22 2.74 2.02 3.55
High school and
post-secundary 2.49 2.33 3.31 2.74 2.03 3.66
University 2.52 2.54* 3.20 2.65 2.20 3.58
Language of instruction in secondary school
Hungarian 2.55 2.31** 3.17 2.77 1.99 3.48
Majority
(Ro, Sk, etc) 2.46 2.48** 3.16 2.65 2.08 3.60
Total 2.51 2.40 3.17 2.71 2.01 3.53
Note: The question was: How do you see the following groups? The answer-options ranged on a
scale from 1 to 5, with the following coding: 1=very agreeable, 2=rather agreeable, 3=neutral
(neither agreeable, nor disagreea ble), 4=rather disagreeable, a nd 5=very disagreeable (the
largest distance).

* p<0.05, **p<0.01 level significant differences between mean v alues (t-test).

98 Continuation of Table 2
Ukraine Serbia
Gender Ukrainians Hungarians
from
Hungary Roma Serbs Hungarians
from
Hungary Roma
Men 2.54 2.33 3.45 2.54 2.34 3.10
Women 2.63 2.39 3.47 2.67 2.38 3.15
Settlement type
Rural 2.62 2.36 3.49 2.66 2.27 3.12
Urban 2.46 2.39 3.34 2.50 2.48 3.12
Age groups
18-29 2.51* 2.61* 3.52 2.74* 2.52* 3.20
30-44 2.54 2.35 3.35 2.56 2.39 3.05
45-64 2.56 2.20 3.49 2.64 2.36 3.18
65 and over 2.77* 2.39* 3.45 2.50* 2.20* 3.02
Education level
Elementary 2.70* 2.37 3.35 2.69 2.36* 3.13
Vocational 2.38 2.12 3.40 2.53 2.19 3.00
High school and post-
secundary 2.56 2.40 3.54 2.67 2.51 3.25
University 2.40* 2.39 3.55 2.55 2.53* 3.13
Language of instruction in secondary school
Hungarian 2.70** 2.43 3.50 2.74** 2.42* 3.18
Majority (Ro, Sk, etc) 2.33* * 2.24 3.44 2.17** 2.17* 3.00
Total 2.59 2.37 3.46 2.61 2.37 3.13
Note: The question was: How do you see the following groups? The answer-options ranged on a
scale from 1 to 5, with the foll owing coding: 1=very agreeable, 2=rather agreeable, 3=neutral
(neither agreeable, nor disagreeable), 4=rather disagreeable, a nd 5=very disagreeable
(the largest distance).
* p<0.05, **p<0.01 level signific ant differences between mean v alues (t-test) For age groups and
education level variables I compared the first and last categor ies.

Table 2 presents, for Hungarians living in Romania, Slovakia, U kraine and
Serbia respectively, mean values of attitudes towards the natio nal majority,
Hungarians from Hungary, and the Roma, along selected socio-dem ographic
variables: sex, type of settlement, age group, level of educati on, and the language
of teaching in primary school. The one result that clearly stan ds out pert a ins to
attitudes toward Roma. For all countries and irrespective of so cio-demographic

99 background, ethnic Hungarians dislike the Roma. There are some nuances, for
example by settlement type and age groups in Romania and Slovak ia. Mean scores
are higher for the youngest respondents, and for urban dwellers .
Interesting are also mean differences by language of instructio n for
attitudes towards the majoritarian population. Only in Ukraine and Serbia
respondents whose language of instruction in secondary school w as Hungarian
report, on average, higher dislike of the majoritarian populati on than those taught
in the language of the national majority. For Romania and Slova kia, this is not the
case. Yet for Romania one can notice a significant difference i n mean appraisal of
Hungarians from Hungary.
Finally, there are some significant mean differences by educati on levels:
in Romania and in Serbia, ethnic Hungarians with elementary edu cation only
have more positive attitudes towards Hungarians from Hungary th an university-
educated respondents. In the interpretation field created by th e ideal of cultural
unity, it is possible to imagine that intellectuals are disappo inted with the extent
to which the Hungarians in Hungary have lived up to the state-p roclaimed
responsibility towards Hungarians living outside its borders (s ee Culic, 2006).
This relation needs further investigation, especially given tha t i n t h e o t h e r t w o
countries no significant differences have been found.

Perceptions of Interethnic Conflict and Cooperation

Table 3 and 4 show how members of the Hungarian minority percei ve
their group’s relation with the majoritarian population nationw ide (Table 3), and
at the level of their locality of residence (Table 4). On natio nal level, Slovakia is the
only country where a majority (55%) describes Slovakian-Hungari an interethnic
relations as conflictual. For Serbia, the corresponding value i s 38.9%, for Romania
3 6 . 4 % a n d f o r U k r a i n e , 1 4 . 6 % . A t t h e o p p o s i t e p o l e , r o u g h l y 3 5 % o f e t h n i c
Hungarians in Romania and in Ukraine report interethnic relatio ns of cooperation.
In Serbia, this percentage is 21%, and in Slovakia 16.6%.
Contextualising the results for Romania, respondents’ answers l ikely
reflect the political nature of the relations between the Hunga rian minority and
majoritarian population: at the time of the data were collectio n (2007), the political
party representing the Hungarian minority (Uniunea Democrata a Maghiarilor
din Romania – UDMR, the Democratic Union of Hungarians from Rom ania) was
part of the ruling coalition. It is very likely that UDMR’s par ticipation in government
was related to Hungarians’ perceptions of interethnic relations .
In contrast to perceived interethnic relations nationwide, when respondents
reflect upon their interactions with the majoritarian populatio n in their places
of residence, a more positive picture emerges. The percentage o f respondents
reporting relations of cooperation with the national majority i n their locality is
55% or higher in all countries except Serbia.

100 Table 3.
Perceived interethnic relations between the Hungarian minority
and the national majority on country level (%)

Interethnic relationship on country level** Countries
Conflictual Cooperative Neutral N (100%)

Romania 36.4% 35.8% 27.7% 815
Ukraine 14.6% 35.0% 50.5% 309
Slovakia 55.8% 16.6% 27.7% 477
Serbia 38.9% 21.9% 39.2% 334
Total 38.1% 28.5% 33.3% 1935
** Association is s ignificant at p<0.01 level (Chi-square)

Table 4.
Perceived interethnic relations between the Hungarian minority
and the national majority in the locality (%)
Interethnic relationship in the locality**
Countries Conflictual Cooperative Neutral Total (%) N
Romania 8.7% 70.1% 21.1% 100% 814
Ukraine 4.3% 61.4% 34.3% 100% 303
Slovakia 10.8% 55.0% 34.2% 100% 529
Serbia 18.1% 45.6% 36.3% 100% 353
Total 20.2% 51.1% 28.7% 100% 2643
** Association is significant at p<0.01 level (Chi-square)

Next, I regroup answers to the perception of interethnic relati ons
question into conflictual (1) and non-conflictual (0). I use t- test to assess if there
are significant differences between these two groups with regar d to mean values of
attitudes of liking/disliking toward: (a) the majoritarian popu lation; (b) Hungarians
from Hungary; and (c) the Roma. It is worth reminding that the attitude variable
ranges from 1 to 5 (see Data and Methods). I do these analyses for perceptions of
conflictual interethnic relations at the national (Table 5) and at the local level
( a v a i l a b l e u p o n r e q u e s t ) . A s e x p e c t e d , t h o s e w h o p e r c e i v e c o n f l ictual relations
w i t h t h e m a j o r i t a r i a n p o p u l a t i o n a l s o h a v e g r e a t e r d i s l i k e o f i t, irrespective of
country. Generally this holds for both the national and the loc al levels. Exception
is Slovakia, where at the level of localities the difference in means between groups
is not significant.

101 Table 5.
Ethnic Hungarians’ attitudes (mean values) towards selected
reference groups, by perception of conflictual/non-conflictual
relations with the majoritarian population nationwide
Attitudes towards: Romania Slovakia Ukraine Serbia
Non-conflictual 1.80 1.93** 1.71 1.89 Hungarians in diaspora
Conflictual 1.80 1.73** 1.84 1.75
Non-conflictual 2.40** 2.64* 2.55** 2.37** Majoritarian population
(Romanian/ Slovakian/ Ukrainian/ Serb) Conflictual 2.74** 2.78* 2.84** 3.10**
Non-conflictual 2.34 2.11* 2.38 2.31 Hungarians from Hungary
Conflictual 2.44 1.89* 2.25 2.47
Non-conflictual 3.11* 3.42** 3.44 2.94** Roma minority
Conflictual 3.28* 3.65** 3.60 3.47**
** The difference is significant at p<0.01 level (t -test)

The next step in my analyses is OLS regression of the 5-point s cale of
attitudes toward the majoritarian population (1=very agreeable, 5=very
disagreeable) on respondents’ socio-demographic characteristics , their degree of
ethnocentrism, perception of conflictual relations with the maj oritarian population,
and perceived ethnic discrimination. Table 6 reports the standa rdized coefficients
for the analyses performed by country.
Among respondents’ socio-demogra phic characteristics, age and H ungarian
as language of instruction in school matter in three of the fou r countries. Ceteris
paribus , increase in age significantly lowers attitudes of dislike in Romania and
Slovakia, but works the opposite way in Ukraine. Hungarian lang uage of instruction
significantly increases dislike in Slovakia, Ukraine and Serbia , net of other factors.
Significant gender effects are present for Slovakia only. Serbi a is the only country
where the effect of urban dwelling is significant: compared to non-urban, ethnic
Hungarians living in cities dislike ethnic Serbs less, other fa ctors controlled for.
Independently of respondents’ socio-demographics, ethnocentrism
significantly increases dislike of the majoritarian population in all four countries.
Its effect is also strong relative to the other variables. Perc eived conflictual
relations with the majoritarian population country-wide increas es dislike of it in
both Romania and Ukraine. In Romania, Slovakia and Serbia, Hung arians who felt
discriminated against based on their ethnicity, compared to tho s e w h o d i d n o t ,
display stronger dislike of the majoritarian population.

102 Finally, perceptions of conflictual interethnic relations at lo cal level are
significant only for Serbia, probably due to Serbian immigrants fleeing from t he
South because of the Yugoslavian wars. I checked the correlatio n coefficients
between interethnic conflict country-wide and interethnic confl ict at local level,
and we can see significant (p< 0.01) but weak relations (r = 0. 249 for Romania;
0.154 for Slovakia; 0.249 for Ukraine; 0.321 for Serbia).
Table 6.
OLS regression of ethnic Hungarians’ attitudes toward the majoritarian
population on selected independent variables, by countries

Beta coefficients
Independent variables: Romania Slovakia Ukraine Serbia

Age -0.125*** -0.102* 0.118* -0.010
Gender (Men=1) 0.019 0.107* -0.052 -0.075
Urban (1, else =0) -0.032 -0.058 -0.082 -0.156***
University or collegea -0.029 -0.030 -0.013 0.027
High schoola -0.064 0.018 -0.016 0.004
Language of instruction in
school(Hungarian =1) 0.062 0.083* 0.139** 0.113**
Ethnocentrism 0.198*** 0.181*** 0.182*** 0.235***
Perceived interethnic
relations on country level
(conflictual=1, else=0) 0.165*** 0.027 0.106* 0.131**
Perceived interethnic
relations on local level
(conflictual=1) -0.002 -0.010 0.083 0.257***
Perceived discrimination 0.147*** 0.162*** 0.065 0.131***
Adjusted R2 0.112 0.080 0.100 0.274
N 870 517 335 368
a This educational group is contrasted to those with lower level of education
*** p<0.001; **p<0.01; *p<0.05

Multidimensional Scaling Model of the attitudes toward social groups
I used Multidimensional Scaling, with Alscal method in SPSS, co mputing
two-dimensional models for the four countries. The social attit udes of Hungarian
minorities measure social distances towards the following natio nal, ethnic and
other social minority groups: national majorities (Romanians, S lovaks, Serbs,
Ukrainians), Hungarian minorities, Hungarians from Hungary, Rom a minority,
other ethnic groups (Jews, Chinese, Germans, Asylum seekers) no n-ethnic social
minorities (homosexuals, security guards, entrepreneurs, unempl oyed, drug
addicts, and skinheads). For all models, the S-stress values ar e less than 0.10:

103 for Romania 0.06, for Slovakia and Ukraine 0.05, and for Serbia , 0.10. (see
Table 8). The goodness of fit can be assessed by examining the scatterpots by
countries (see Appendix 1).
Table 8.
Multidimensional Scaling Model Summary of Group Attitudes
(Alscal method, bidimensional) by countries, cases and
S-stress significance levels
Country Valid N S-stressa RSQ value
Romania 473 0.060 0.980
Slovakia 446 0.047 0.990
Ukraine 282 0.049 0.991
Serbia 282 0.100 0.953
a Euclidean Distance used

Analysing the Derived Stimulus Configuration of the two-dimensi onal MDS
model of Hungarians living in Romania (Fig. 3), we may see that the level of
agreeability -antipathy towards different groups appears along the vertical
dimension. The unemployed and the own group, Hungarians from Tr ansylvania,
are placed on the top, while Roma, the new rich and entrepreneu rs are at the
bottom. The other dimension embodies continuum from social non- ethnic groups
(drug addicts, skinheads, homosexuals), that may be characteris ed by strong
rejection to Hungarian ethnic minority groups (Hungarians from Slovakia, Serbia,
Ukraine) that are largely accepted. If we interpret these two d imensions together,
t h e „ o w n ” g r o u p , t h e u n e m p l o y e d , a s y l u m s e e k e r s , a n d o t h e r H u n g arian ethnic
minorities are situated in the first right upper quarter, which is highly accepted
according to both dimensions. Germans, together with Jews, Chin ese and security
g u a r d s a r e a r o u n d t h e n e u t r a l f i e l d ; t h e y r e p r e s e n t g r o u p s t o w hich our
respondents are not specifically connected. Hungarians from Hun gary, majority
Romanians and Entrepreneurs fall into the right bottom quarter. T h e y a r e
considered less agreeable on the vertical axis, but on the hori zontal axis they fall
very far from the „other” social groups such as drug addicts or homosexuals. It is
worth noticing that the two „majority” reference groups have be come very close.
Both Hungarians from Hungary and Romanians are „majority” natio nal groups to
which Hungarians from Romania are linked through some kind of „ dependency”
and their representation is that of „minority” in relation to b oth. Therefore, the
respondents perceived a similar distance from their minority in group and both to
Hungarians from Hungary and to Romanians. This is so even under the conditions
in which 80% of Romanian respondents agree that Hungarians from Transylvania
are part of the Hungarian nation, and 65% also agree that Hunga rians from
Romania are part of the Romanian nation (Veres, 2010:146-149). It may be
argued that in the first case we have to deal with cultural ide ntification, while in
the second case with civic identification (Veres, 2012)

104

Fig. 3. Multidimensional Scaling Model, social group attitudes of Hungarians
from Romania (Alscal method, two-dimensional solution

The model of Hungarians from Slovakia is somewhat similar, yet with
some noticeable differences (see Fig. 4.): Hungarian ethnic min orities are situated
in the right upper quarter but there are no other social groups n e a r b y .
Hungarians from Hungary and majority Slovakians fall into the r ight bottom
q u a r t e r , b u t i n s u c h a w a y t h a t H u n g a r i a n s f r o m H u n g a r y a r e s i t uated close to
Hungarian minorities, including the „own” group. In this model, they are situated
farther from majority Slovakians than in the case of the Romani an model. Roma
are perceived in a similar way as in the Romanian model, but th ey are more
separated and no other social group is close to them. The new r ich are situated at
the upper margin of the left bottom quarter and their perceptio n is considerably
more positive than in Romania.

105

Fig. 4. Multidimensional Scaling Model of social group attitudes of Hungarians
from Slovakia (Alscal method, two-dimensional solution)

The model for Hungarians in Ukraine is different from the Roman ian
model (Fig. 5). According to this model, Hungarians from Hungar y are situated in
the right upper quarter of the map and majority Serbians near t hem. Hungarian
ethnic minorities are situated in the right bottom quarter of t he map, while
entrepreneurs and the unemployed fell near the axis of the mode l, the „neutral”
zone. The Roma and the new rich are situated in the left upper quarter of the
model. Although they are far from the own group (Hung_Uk) it is as if the vertical
a x i s h a s t u r n e d a r o u n d c o m p a r e d t o t h e R o m a n i a n a n d S l o v a k i a n m odels.
Otherwise, „majority” national groups, Hungarians from Hungary and Ukrainians
are situated close here as well. On the other hand, similarly t o the Romanian model
too, Hungarian ethnic minorities stand apart quite clearly. Bas ed on attitudes
towards drug addicts, skinheads and homosexuals, Hungarians fro m Ukraine are
situated farther, in the direction of negative values.

106

Fig. 5. Multidimensional Scaling Model, social group attitudes of Hungarians
from Ukraine (Alscal method, two-dimensional solution)

The model from Serbia is exceptionally different (Fig. 6). Diff erent Hungarian
ethnic minorities do not form a cluster. Hungarians from Serbia as „own” group
are situated at the right margin of the right upper quarter of the map, while
Hungarians from Hungary are situated the closest to them. Hunga rians from
Slovakia falls farther, vertically upwards and to the left at t he same time, while
Hungarians from Romania and Ukraine appear distinctly in the le ft upper quarter
of the figure, far from both Slovaks and any other group. The m ost groups do not
fall far from Hungarians from Hungary either, but they are situ ated in the central
part of the right bottom quarter. Roma are on their left, but s t i l l i n t h e s a m e
quarter while entrepreneurs and security guards are situated be tween the two.
Drug users, skinheads and homosexuals fall very far from the ow n group only
according to the horizontal dimension, although they belong to the other left-
bottom quarter, but close to the axis.

107

Fig. 6. Multidimensional Scaling Model, social group attitudes of
Hungarians from Serbia (Alscal method, bidimensional)

The MDS Derived Subject Weights model, with differences between
countries (Fig. 7) confirms a peculiar location of Hungarians f rom Serbia. While
the location of national-ethnic groups of Hungarians from Roman ia, Slovakia and
U k r a i n e i s s i m i l a r ( a l l s i t u a t e d i n t h e r i g h t b o t t o m c o r n e r ) , H ungarians from
Serbia are situated very far from them (in the left upper corne r).

108

Fig. 7. Individual differences by countries in Multidimensional Scaling Model
of social group attitudes of Hungarian minorities (Alscal method,
1-Romania, 2-Ukraine, 3-Slovakia, 4-Serbia)

Conclusions

The results of this research point out that Hungarians living i n minority in
different countries form ingroups, in that they feel significan tly closer to other
Hungarians in the diaspora than to the majoritarian population in their country of
citizenship, Hungarians in Hungary, and the Roma. The majority of respondents
perceive members of the majoritarian population (Romanians, Slo vakians,
Ukrainians and Serbs, respectively), as well as Hungarians in H ungary, as having
personal characteristics that are different form their own. How ever, the idea of
belonging to the „unitary” Hungarian nation also exists, and it is shared by a large
proportion (70-80%) of every minority community (see Veres, 201 2:149). Based
on the employed bivariate and multivariate statistical methods, we may conclude
that certain socio-demographic fac tors, such as age and Hungari an as language
of instruction, are more relevant for shaping ethnic Hungarians ’ attitudes of

109 liking/dislike towards the majoritarian population than educati on or gender. Of
particular importance is ethnocentrism, which significantly inc reases attitudes of
dislike in all four countries, above and beyond respondents’ so cio-demographic
characteristics. My analysis also shows that variables capturin g perceptions of
conflictual interethnic relations, and of ethnic discrimination , greatly contribute
to understanding variation in ethic Hungarians’ attitudes towar d s t h e e t h n i c
majoritarians in their countries.
In accordance with Verdery’s (1993) approach, the discrepancy b etween
the explanatory model for Serbia and those for the other countr ies might be
attributed to the “loadedness” of ethnicity following the oppre ssive ethnic policies
of the Milosevich regime, the Yugoslav wars and their consequen ces for the
population of Vojvodina. In Romania, Slovakia and Ukraine state policies were
more permissive towards the recognized ethnic minorities, thus ethnicity remained
less loaded. Except for this difference, the country-models are quite similar.
Hungarians living in minority in various countries do not inclu de
themselves in the same ingroup as Hungarians from Hungary, and they do not feel
very close to them. According to MDS Alscal models, our respond ents’ group
identity may be illustrated by concentric circles (see Fig. 3). T h e f i r s t c i r c l e
delineates the attitudes of Hungarians from Romania, Slovakia a nd Ukraine as
similar: the Hungarian minorities from these countries are the closest to the “self-
group”. The next concentric circle includes the whole Hungarian nation, especially
the Hungarians from Hungary. The third concentric circle opens towards the
majority nation (and other ethnic minorities, except for Roma, who are placed
farther away). The relationship between the Hungarian minority and the majority
is closest in Romania; this pattern is also present in Slovakia a n d U k r a i n e . I n
Serbia a distinct model may be noticed: probably due to the soc ial consequences
of the Yugoslavian war, Hungarians from Serbia (Vojvodina) perc eive Hungarians
from Hungary as relatively close.
While this paper provides interesting insights, it also has met hodological
limitations that stem to a good extent from using cross-section al data. Research
on this topic will greatly benefit from over-time cross-nationa l comparisons of
ethnic minorities groups’ self-identification, and their relati onal positioning to
relevant reference groups, such as those discussed in this pape r. Such approach,
which longitudinal data make possible, would allow us to measur e change in
respondents’ characteristics through time, including change in their attitudes.
It would also facilitate disentangling possible reciprocal effe cts, for example
between variables like perceptions of interethnic conflict and social distance.

110
REFERENCES

Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined Communities . London: Verso Books.
Barth, F. (1969). Ethnic Groups and Boundaries . Boston: Little, Brown, and Co.
Brubaker, R. (1996). Nationalism reframed . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brubaker, R., Feischmidt, M., Fox, J., Grancea, L. (2006). [Rom anian translation: 2010]
Nationalist Politics and Everyday Ethnicity in a Transylvanian Town . Princeton
and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Bugajski, J. (1995). Ethnic Politics in Eastern Europe: A Guide to Nationality Policies,
Organizations, and Parties . New York: Armonk.
Calhoun, C. (2003). Belonging' in the cosmopolitan imaginary. Ethnicities , 3(4): 531-
553.
Csepeli, G. (1997). National Identity in Contemorary Hungary . New Jersey: Atlantic
Research and Publications Inc. [Hungarian version: 1992, Nemzet á l t a l
homályosan. Századvég: Budapest].
Csepeli G., Örkény, A. and Székelyi, M. (2000). Grappling with National Identity. How
Nations See Each Other in Centra l Europe. Budapest: Akadémiai K iadó.
Culic, I. (1999). Dilema minoritarului: între identitate civilă și identitate națională
[Minoritarian’s Dilemma: between Civic and National Identity]. In: I. Culic, I.
Horváth, and C. Stan (eds.) Reflexii asupra diferentei [R eflections upon differences] .
Cluj-Napoca: Limes, pp. 35-47.
Culic, I. (2006). Dilemmas of belonging: Hungarians from Romani a. Nationalities
Papers: The Journal of Nationalism and Ethnicity , 34(2):175-200.
Gellner, E (1987). Culture, Identity and Politics . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gyurgyik, L. (2006). Népszámlálás 2001. A szlovákiai magyarság [Census 2001. The
Hungarians from Slovakia ]. Bratislava: Kalligram.
Hobsbawm, E. (1990). Nations and Nationalism since 1780 . Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Kuzio, T. (2002). The myth of the civic state: a critical surve y of Hans Kohn’s framework
for understanding nationalism. Ethnic and Racial Studies , 25(1): 20–39.
Le Vine, R.A. and Campbell, D.T. (1972). Ethnocentrism: Theories of Conflict, Ethnic
Attitudes, and Group Behavior . New York: Wiley.
Papp, Z.A. and Veres, V. (2007). Kárpát Panel. Gyorsjelentés [Carpathian Panel Report] .
MTA ENKI: Budapest.
Smith, A. D. (1991). National Identity . London: Penguin LTD.
Stewart, M. (1997). The Time of the Gypsies . Oxford: Westview Press.
Tajfel, H. (1978). The Social Psychology of Minorities . M. Right Group LTD, London
Troc, G. (2012). Transnational migration and roma self-identity : two case studies,
Studia UBB Sociologia , 57(2): 77-100.
Verdery, K. (1991). National Ideology under Socialism. Berkeley: California University
Press.
Verdery, K. (1993). Nationalism and National Sentiment in Post- Socialist Romania.
Slavic Review , 52(2): 179-203.

111 Veres V. (2000). Az erdélyi magyarok és románok közösségi ident itása a társadalmi
s t r u k t ú r a t ü k r é b e n [ T h e I d e n t i t y o f H u n g a r i a n s f r o m T r a n s y l v a n i a as
Reflected by Social Structures]. Szociológiai Szemle, 4: 57–86.
Veres, V. (2005 ). Nemzeti identitás Erdélyben – szoci ológiai olvasatban [Sociological
Approaches to National Identity in Transylvania] . Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Veres, V. (2010). Identitatea minoritară ca oglindă a identităț ii majoritare. Analiza
comparată a identității minorităților maghiare din România, Ser bia, Slovacia
și Ucraina [Minority Identity as a Mirror of Majority Identity. Comparative
Analysis of the National Identity of Hungarian Minorities from Romania,
Serbia, Slovakia and Ukraine]. In V. Boari, S. Gherghina, and R . Murea (eds.):
Regăsirea identit ătii nationale [The Rediscovery of National Identity] , Iasi:
Polirom, pp.130-174.
Veres, V., Papp Z. A. et al. (2012). Szociológiai mintázatok. Erdélyi magyarok a Kárpát
Panel vizsgálatai alapján . [Social Patterns. Hungarians from Transylvania in
the light of the Carpathian Panel Study]. Cluj-Napoca: ISPMN.
Williams, P. (1984). Mariage tsigane . Paris: L'Harmattan.

112
APPENDIX

Fig. A1. Scatterpot of liner fits by countries: MDS model (Alscal), attitudes
towards different ethnic, national and other social groups, by countries

Copyright Notice

© Licențiada.org respectă drepturile de proprietate intelectuală și așteaptă ca toți utilizatorii să facă același lucru. Dacă consideri că un conținut de pe site încalcă drepturile tale de autor, te rugăm să trimiți o notificare DMCA.

Acest articol: NATIONAL ATTITUDES OF ETHNIC HUNGARIANS FROM ROMANIA, SLOVAKIA, SERBIA [622127] (ID: 622127)

Dacă considerați că acest conținut vă încalcă drepturile de autor, vă rugăm să depuneți o cerere pe pagina noastră Copyright Takedown.

NATIONAL ATTITUDES OF ETHNIC HUNGARIANS FROM ROMANIA, SLOVAKIA, SERBIA [622127]

Copyright Notice

2 UNIVERSITATEA “PETRU MAIOR” TG.MURE Ș MASTERAT: SISTEME AVANSATE DE CONDUCERE A PROCESELOR INDUSTRIALE dr. ing. STELIAN EMILIAN OLTEAN CONTROL… [628208]

Conferențiar Dr. Farm. Rosenberg Ladislau [304619]

• Le concept de politique qualité et sa relation avec la politique de l’entreprise • Les exigences de la norme ISO 9001 relatives à la p olitique… [613481]

INSTRUMENTE PENTRU MĂSURAREA DIRECTĂ A DISTANȚELOR STUDENT: Valentin- Viorel MOROIE COORDONATOR: Prof. dr. ing Alexandru Lucian CURTU BRAȘOV 2019… [608521]

Orice drum prin Maramureș poate însemna începutul unei frumoase legături sentimentale cu această zonă ce îndeamnă la reîntoarcerea către tradiții. [310025]

Ba0c212 Marketing And Promotion In The Hotel Industry A Case Study In Family Hotel And Hotel Group [621428]

Copyright Notice

Similar Posts