Romania and Europe

by adhoc
Wed Sep 7th, 2005 at 07:44:31 AM EST

"Romanians believe they show less positive personality traits than the "European person". They even admit having outright negative traits such as being somewhat insensitive to others, leaning towards aggressiveness, and authoritarianism, behaving like followers rather than leaders, reacting tensely, walking on the thin line between honesty and dishonesty, being rather disorganized, idealistic, superficial and conservative."

This is one summary statement from the just released and fascinating study "Romanian and European values and beliefs: are they different or not ?"


Romanians believe they show less positive personality traits than the "European person". They even admit having outright negative traits such as being somewhat insensitive to others, leaning towards aggressiveness, and authoritarianism, behaving like followers rather than leaders, reacting tensely, walking on the thin line between honesty and dishonesty, being rather disorganized, idealistic, superficial and conservative."

This is one summary statement from the fascinating study Romanian and European values and beliefs: are they different or not ? which was conducted here in June. (It's a pdf file and rather long at that, so be prepared for a wait).

The survey looks at the (self-perceived) differences and similarities between Romanians and Western Europeans, whether "European values" are respected in Romania, to what extent "non-European values" are accepted here, what Romania's agenda should be, and the perceptions of the EU, acession, and various public figures. It's all pretty interesting stuff.

There are some horrifying statistics contained therein - 38% of population believe that "Homosexuals are hardly better than criminals" for example, and 46% think "Superior and inferior races are a reality". Some surprising ones - 64% say that there are "Too many foreigners in the country at the expense of Romanians" (in truth this may only be surprising to someone like me who lives in a town with practically no immigrants). Some pleasantly surprising ones - only 42% think that there are "More lawbreakers among gypsies than among Romanians" (I would have expected it to be much higher), and at least one extremely misinformed one - 62% think that "Ethnic groups should be obliged to learn Romanian". (I live in one of the few towns where you could theoretically get by without learning Romanian, but everybody who wants to graduate from school, to obtain anything resembling a reasonable level of education or to be able to survive in the country as a whole must -and does- learn Romanian. It's stunning to me that there are people in this country who think that the ethnic minorities are swanning around NOT able to speak the national language.)

56% of the population are hopeful about EU accession with 39% worried, with the majority seeing that accession will bring short term drawbacks with long term advantages (that's pretty much my view too).

The best bit is tucked away at the end, where various "potential communicators" are ranked according to how aware the public are of them and how competent they are perceived. The two most competent are seen to be Basescu (100% awareness) and Jonathan Scheele (37% awareness), who is (as far as I know) the chief EU bod in the country. The least competent? Gigi Becali (94% awareness). Hah.

By the way, when reading through the list of traits of a Western European as compared with Romanians (by Romanians) it's fairly clear that most people interpret "Western European" to equate to "Western and Northern European", which is interesting. (Western Europeans are perceived as cold and reserved for example).

Interesting reading all round.

Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password

Display:
"Romanians believe they show less positive personality traits than the "European person". They even admit having outright negative traits such as being somewhat insensitive to others, leaning towards aggressiveness, and authoritarianism, behaving like followers rather than leaders, reacting tensely, walking on the thin line between honesty and dishonesty, being rather disorganized, idealistic, superficial and conservative."

Funny: I seem to remember a similar study here in Hungary, with the exact same result! I believe this is part of the effect of the EU, the EU representing some ideal in neighbor states' citizens' heads.

There are some horrifying statistics contained therein - 38% of population believe that "Homosexuals are hardly better than criminals" for example, and 46% think "Superior and inferior races are a reality".

Hm. The surprising part for me in this is that these two numbers aren't the other way. Homophobia seemed to me more widespread in our region than open (and conscious) racism. On the other hand, the second number may be another manifestation of anti-Gypsy racism, which regrettably is majority opinion throughout Central-Eastern Europe. (The opinion was not uncommon here in Hungary that expelling Gypsies from the country would have increased Hungary's chances of joining the EU...)

Some surprising ones - 64% say that there are "Too many foreigners in the country at the expense of Romanians" (in truth this may only be surprising to someone like me who lives in a town with practically no immigrants).

I beg to disagree on two counts. First, some may include ethnic minorities among the 'foreigners'. Second, from studies in Germany, I know there is actually an anti-correlation between the number of foreigners and xenophobia: the explanation is at hand, preconceptions are built on cluelessness.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Wed Sep 7th, 2005 at 08:55:16 AM EST
It's stunning to me that there are people in this country who think that the ethnic minorities are swanning around NOT able to speak the national language.

This is also a big problem in the US.  There is a widespread perception that Spanish speaking immigrants are taking over the country, when in fact, every teenager in those immigrant families can speak English.

by corncam on Wed Sep 7th, 2005 at 09:56:03 AM EST
For (ethnic) Romanians non-Romanians are all "foreigners", minorities, immigrants and all. I don't think there are that many recent immigrants in Romania, and most of them would be Westerners, who would generate the exact opposite of resentment. Minorities are a different issue altogether: according to the propaganda of the seventies and eighties they are vagrants who abused Romanians' hospitality. This was read as an anti-Hungarian barb: as opposed to Romanians, who'd lived there from time immemorial, Hungarians were these loose migrating tribes that made Romania their home. (It doesn't matter that this took place more than 1000 years ago, and it is debatable whether that territory would have qualified as Romania back then.) At any rate, this was the propaganda I grew up with: as Comrade C. pandered more and more to nationalism, one of the main "arguments" against Hungarians was that they are an inferior, vagrant bunch. As with all official propaganda, some bought it, some didn't. Some Romanians, who were not so fond of Hungarians in private, nevertheless resisted gov-t induced chauvinism, because they resented the government for other reasons. (Not to mention decent Romanians, for whom all this was a constant shame.)

I would not be surprised that many Romanians still have mistaken notions about minorities: under the old regime there was NO unbiased official information, there was no official effort to raise the awareness of ethnic Romanians (from homogeneous areas), to make them acquainted with the culture and history of these groups. On the contrary, all an average Romanian would hear about minorities would be that they are abusive guests, parasites, you name it. Things have been VERY SLOWLY improving since 1989, but it will take a long time until Romanians come to fully accept the fact that R. is a multicultural, multilingual society. In this process, the differences between R's regions are bound to become deeper. On my sporadic visits Transylvania does seem to be proudly multicultural, with many Romanians voluntarily learning the once-derided Hungarian language, but I am a bit sceptic (and uninformed) about the other regions.

P.s. For the record, I'm an ethnic Hungarian who grew up in Transylvania. Some stuff I wrote about Ceausescu's propaganda may sound harsh and biased, but unfortunately  those texts and manifests WERE pretty awful. One good thing was that many people were just deaf to all this, out of a healthy E-European distrust for officialdom.

A dog's a dog. A Cat's a Cat. (T.S. Eliot)

by BFA (agnes at ims dot uni-stuttgart dot de) on Wed Sep 7th, 2005 at 10:05:34 AM EST
There's a wonderful book on the discourse of nationalism under Ceaucescu by the American historical anthropologist Katherine Verdery
National Ideology Under Socialism: Identity and Cultural Politics in Ceausescu's Romania

Not directly on topic but a fun read is her excursion into what she calls 'political necrophilia' The Political Lives of Dead Bodies: Reburial and Postsocialist Change

by MarekNYC on Thu Sep 8th, 2005 at 03:22:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Could you tell us who Basescu and Becali are? I must admit I am not familiar with the names, to my probable shame when you will tell us!

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Sep 7th, 2005 at 11:05:48 AM EST
Basescu is the new president, before that he was major of Bucharest. He is on one hand a clean-hands populist, on the other hand inspired by the US neocons (not in style as our cons, but ideology!) - and behind flat tax reform.

Becali is a chauvinist populist trouble-stirrer businessman and owner of a football club; but I didn't hear that he has a political position.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Wed Sep 7th, 2005 at 04:11:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
As DoDo says.  Absolutely no reason why you should have heard of Becali.  But trust me he's an idiot of the highest order.  Think small time Dick Cheney crossed with Tony Soprano crossed with Jesus Gil y Gil.  He's the owner of Steaua Bucharest, who you are more likely to have heard of.

I think DoDo is a little harsh on Basescu, who is much more centrist (though right of centre to be sure) than NeoCon.  He even had the guts to stand up against Bush and investigate the contract that had been signed between the previous adminstration and US contractor Bechtel to build a motorway.

Musings on life in Romania and beyond

by adhoc on Thu Sep 8th, 2005 at 06:02:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
please correct me if I am wrong, but I heard that there was/is a deathpenalty on homosexuality in Romania. Is that still the case?
by PeWi on Wed Sep 7th, 2005 at 11:38:28 AM EST
O.K I answered my own question. Amnesty International talks about the reform of the penal system.

The home office is reporting that there are two gay friendly bars in Bucharest. Ah well, that is something.

also:
Article 200, which criminalised same-sex relationships, was abolished in Autumn 2001 (Ordinance 89/2001). There remains no legal discrimination against homosexual acts. The European Commission concluded in November 2001 that this represents a positive development in human rights legislation, which brings Romania into line with European standards.

by PeWi on Wed Sep 7th, 2005 at 04:50:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"They even admit having outright negative traits such as being somewhat insensitive to others, leaning towards aggressiveness, and authoritarianism, behaving like followers rather than leaders, reacting tensely, walking on the thin line between honesty and dishonesty, being rather disorganized, idealistic, superficial and conservative."

The perennial speculation in the USA is what territory will become the 51st state.  Sounds like Romania would fit right in.

Somewhere in cyberspace, the ghost of de Chardin is smiling.

by budr on Wed Sep 7th, 2005 at 12:57:18 PM EST
Thanks for the comments. It's interesting that two people assume that the "too many foreigners" comment is aimed at the ethnic minorities - of which there are many groupings in Romania with Hungarians making up the majority.  I'm guessing that many of the people who answered "yes" to that question were also those who answered "yes" to the question "Ethnic groups should be required to learn Romanian".  So are they foreigners or are they not?

Agnes, I live in Csikszereda (Miercurea Ciuc in Romanian) which as you know is a Hungarian town in Transylvania (one of the few majority Hungarian communities left) - I have a regular blog at szekely.blogspot.com if you're interested.

Aplogies for the "in-joke" tone of some of this piece.  It was my first attempt at writing something at EuroTrib and I basically copied something I had posted on my own blog.  I will make sure that in future what I post here is written (or at least edited) exclusively with a different slant.

Thanks again.
Andy

Musings on life in Romania and beyond

by adhoc on Thu Sep 8th, 2005 at 03:46:38 AM EST
It was good: thanks for it. You can assume that if we don't understand we'll ask. We're not shy.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Sep 8th, 2005 at 03:57:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
We all have our individual styles here, thanks for posting and we will discover the nuances of your humor.
by PeWi on Thu Sep 8th, 2005 at 03:58:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, to add on the above encouragements: we're grateful that you are posting here - we're trying to build up a common European site and we need as many viewpoints from as many places and perspectives as we can and you bring us something valuable.

Don't hesitate to crosspost from your blog and to advertise it when doing so!

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Thu Sep 8th, 2005 at 05:09:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's interesting that two people assume that the "too many foreigners" comment is aimed at the ethnic minorities - of which there are many groupings in Romania with Hungarians making up the majority.

If that surprises you, may I ask how long you live in Csíkszereda and where you come from?

Understanding nationalism is central to understanding my region. Modern nationalism was born in France, based on the idea of replacing the absolutist king (who replaced the semi-autonomous aristocracy) with "The People" as the definer of the State. The problem is, which group of humans should be "The People"?

In France, there was a 400-year process of the Paris centre culturally assimilating the rest of the population of the State, often against violent resistance, and not without border changes. In Eastern Europe, things started later and are more problematic - there were different movements proclaiming different, intersecting groups of humans as their "People", and making a claim to different, even more intersecting lands. Especially after WWI, the clash of these national movements led to a lot of ethnic cleansings, repression, forced assimilation - and false historical mythologies, and lots of chauvinistic ideas. (While some nation-ideas failed: say, the more wide Chechoslowakian, the even wider Panslavic and the narrower Moravian ones.)

Thus, ethnic minorities (=adherents of the idea of a different nation) still not ethnic cleansed are viewed in a hostile manner by parts of the nationalistic part of the majority population, who think they should move to the state that has their ethnic as majority.

It is all very ugly. The EU (both its semi-federal and regionalising tendencies) could change things for the better here - making borders and country-level authorities less important.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Thu Sep 8th, 2005 at 05:18:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Ah, and as the others remind me of my omission: I shall welcome you here too! I look forward for more interesting posts from you on politics and life in Romania.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
by DoDo on Thu Sep 8th, 2005 at 05:19:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm from England, DoDo, though I left there over 17 years ago and have since lived all over the place.  I've been here for just a year, but I don't really experience Romanian nationalism in the sense you mean it precisely because I live in Csikszereda.  The vast majority of Romanians I know are ethnically Hungarian.  

Your comment didn't surprise me, I just found it intriguing that if you are correct (and I don't know if you are, but I don't have any reason to doubt it), then there is a serious paradox in the thinking of those people who think that (a) Transylvanian Hungarians should leave; and (b) they should learn Romanian (which of course they already do).  (Not that the far right and bigoted people aren't riven with paradox anyway)

Frankly, the 1.5m Hungarians who are still in Romania are the ones who want to be here (as you know many people left in 1990).  (And having spoken to many people here the overriding impression you get from the Transylvanian Hungarians is that they are comfortable with being part of Romanian, though they'd like more Autonomy along Catalonian lines, but are most pissed off at Hungarians from Hungary who they accuse of patronising them as their "poor oppressed Magyar brothers" but look down their noses at them if they go to Hungary as "Romanians")

A lot of generalisations there, to be sure.  This feels like it's turning into a post all of its own. :-)

Musings on life in Romania and beyond

by adhoc on Thu Sep 8th, 2005 at 05:37:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Regarding the leave/learn Romanian paradox, while as you say cognitive dissonance is nothing unusual for a far-rightist, here the solution is simple: it's an either-or for them :-)

Maybe it's instructive if I tell some things about how my ancestors fared. The leadership of the newly risen countries after WWI also wanted to create its own national elite. (Elite, in a wide sense as educated people, not as company owners/aristocracy.) In Romania, this meant ethnic quotas at higher schools (which hit my grandmother and her siblings who came to Budapest for that reason), and job offered to people in fields like foresty manager only away from home, in ethnic Romanian-majority areas (which hit my grand-grandfather). In Chechoslowakia, a similar ethnic rule was imposed on public servants. My multi-lingual grand-grand-mother (on another branch) chose to be Hungarian (tough her writing shows that wasn't her best mother tongue of three) and was fired, her son too, but all her brothers and sisters chose to be Slowakian and kept their jobs. Letters I have prove the old people continued to stay in touch, mostly in Hungarian, but the descendants fully assimilated to the respective nation.

I looked at your blog, and happened upon an earlier post I can't now find again where you and a lot of commenters discussed the intra-Hungarian xenophoby and the double citizenship vote. (BTW, the existence of such xenophoby is another proof that nations and ethnics aren't as straightforward things as people usually assume.) If you are interested, I wrote a diary here about the double referendum - tough it was focusing on the hospital privatisation issue, I go on detail on the other too. (I was a stop-privatisation-Yes, double-citizenship-No voter, but for none of the arguments all the parties shamefully campaigned with.)

If you read that, let me emphasize some things. The far-right Hungarian-Hungarian commenter with the 'Varangy' handle was way off blaming a leftist No vote for their failure: "Yes" won, the referendum foundered on participation, not a No vote, with the majority of Fidesz voters staying at home. So he should have looked at the target audience of the government's xenophobic campaign in his own camp. So much so that while normally I'd ask whether your observations of two behaviours correspond to the same sub-set of people, I feel fairly sure that the "poor oppressed Magyar brothers"-talkers and those who look down their noses are often the same. (Hungarian 'leftists' are more likely to not travel at all to Erdély, or only for tourism or visiting relatives rather than observing an ethnic reservate.)

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Fri Sep 9th, 2005 at 04:11:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks DoDo.  Very interesting stuff.  I wish you'd been around on the comments page back then.  

Anyway, having read the link you posted on the healthcare/dual nationality referenda, I now need to go and read the other stuff you've posted on it.  I am glad I have finally found a leftist Hungarian blogger (who blogs in English!)to lead me through the intricacies of it, since all I've had to work with previously are either unreliable views from Hungary and the reactions of people here (which, as you might imagine, are heavily tinged with a strong emotional reaction to the vote).

Cheers
Andy

Musings on life in Romania and beyond

by adhoc on Fri Sep 9th, 2005 at 04:26:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm glad if I can help!

Tough, for disclosure, I'm quite disenchanted with all mainstream politics here, so I might not know enough or even miss some of the current events blaring in the press. (For example, I missed the present Romanian-Hungarian spy scandal-or-not by a full ten days.) But at least I know where to look if I need to read up on something.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Fri Sep 9th, 2005 at 05:36:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]