In political theory and anthropology, collective identity is used to describe the idea that groups of people accept a fundamental (and consequential) sameness that gives rise to a feeling of solidarity amongst themselves. This identity emerges through both intentional and unintentional interactions and is therefore socially constructed. A crucial aspect of collective identity is the formation of an ‘other’, as groups tend to define themselves as response to the identity of another group. Collective identity is formed through the conscious and unconscious meanings that the members of the group assign to their ethnicity, nationality, class, religion etc., through their socialization (Fligstein 132).
This essay focuses on two national cases, Bulgaria and Romania, and the collective identity of nationality that is formed within them. Deutsch defines nationality as “a people striving to equip itself with power, with some machinery of compulsion strong enough to make the enforcement of its commands probable in order to aid in the spread of habits of voluntary compliance with them” (104). He recognizes that differences in class and regional particularities often stand in the way of a cohesive national identity, and therefore, nationality requires the alignment of different interests. In order for this alignment to occur, the members of the nation need to identify another element of solidarity, i.e. religion, ideology or language. As Fligstein has argued, “Nationalism can have any cultural root, as long as that culture can be used to forge a cross-class alliance around a nation-building project” (Fligstein 136). Bulgaria and Romania are of special interest both as post-communist nations but also as recent members of the European Union, with both joining in 2007.
Balkan nationalism came into existence in the early 1800s but its effects are still felt within Balkan nations today. The rise of the Western concept of nationalism eventually led to the overthrow of the Ottoman empire but it manifested itself differently in the Balkan peninsula than in Western Europe, as it was focused on a cultural and religious reawakening. The acute awareness of similarity that suddenly emerged in the Balkan a few centuries ago, is still very much centered on cultural heritage rather than existing conflicts on ideology.
Bulgaria
Bulgarian nationalism has often been associated with moderation and a lack of affinity with extremist ideologies, despite Bulgaria’s somewhat troubled history, and the continued salience of issues pertaining to ethnic harmony. Unlike Romania, Bulgaria’s conceptualization of nationhood has been characterized as largely being premised on the symbiosis between language, history and culture, and a relative lack of emphasis on biological categories, like race (Dandolov). Bulgarian nationalism, as well as Balkan nationalism more broadly, should be conceptualized as “nation-oriented idioms, practices, and possibilities that are continuously available or ‘endemic’ in modem cultural and political life” (Brubaker 1996). At the heart of nationalism lies of course an intense awareness of the polity as citizens of a nation and the prioritization of loyalty to the nation above all other loyalties.
The recent history of Bulgaria, as well as the rest of the Balkans, makes explicit why a strong identification as ‘Bulgarian’ and loyalty to the country were essential for the survival of the nation. The 500-years long Ottoman rule of Bulgaria was followed by a century of great political unrest, with many wars and economic stagnation. In the years after the liberation, there were significant efforts to define a ‘true national consciousness’ (Ibid). At the same time, this period pitted ‘traditionalists’ and ‘modernists’ against each other, the former arguing against the constant importing of models and norms from the west, while the latter claiming that national rejuvenation only be achieved through the borrowing of liberal traditions. The conflict in terms of collective identity framed itself as one of ideology: the traditionalists, concentrated mostly in the agrarian centers, and prioritized their local values, whereas the outward-looking modernists saw potential for unity and improvement from the West.
The ideology-based identification of Bulgarians continued into the 20th century. The Balkan wars were followed by World War I and World War II, during which, Germany penetrated into the Balkans and occupied Bulgaria, despite the country’s declared neutrality. Russia liberated Bulgaria in 1944 and the Bulgarian Communist Party (BKP) emerged as the leading political force, while the People’s Republic of Bulgaria was proclaimed in 1946. The country remained under communist rule until 1990, when state and party got separated, hardliners removed and the party’s name changed to the Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP). With the collapse of communism, the early 1990s were characterized by a lot of sympathy for European models, which was a reflection of the eagerness to throw away all the remnants of communism (Dandolov). Membership in the EU was seen as a point of pride and prestige, which, according to Dandolov, “implied a lack of detailed comprehension of the ‘institutional elements’ typical of the EU”.
Bulgarian identity is still at ideological crossroads, most evident in the election of Tsar Simeon II in 2001. He reigned as a minor during WWII, was in exile during the Communist era and returned in 1996 to form the party National Movement for Stability and Progress (NDSV). Very much like the country in the early 2000s, he embodied both progressive European values but was also deeply linked to the nation’s pre-communist history. Historian Diana Mishkova has argued that the ‘Ottoman nationalism’ that emerged in the former parts of the empire, reflects a certain wariness towards multiculturalism, since it is deeply linked with its imperial past. Therefore, Bulgarian national identity depends on the shared past rather than shared visions of the future. Bulgaria indeed remains fairly culturally uniform: around 85% of the population identify as Bulgarian and as Bulgarian native speakers, while the majority of the country identifies as Orthodox Christian. As Deutsch has argued, for collective identity to form, there must an alignment of priorities and behavior, which in the case of Bulgaria is its cultural heritage.
Romania
Romania’s history intersects at many points with Bulgaria’s. Romania was also under Ottoman influence in the 15th century but the existing feudal system prevented the Ottomans from completely controlling the region. The three main regions that now comprise Romania were Transylvania, Wallachia and Moldavia, which shared some cultural features and were ruled jointly for a brief period of time. The rise of Balkan nationalism motivated the three states to attempt unification, as they recognized their shared heritage, in terms of culture, religion and language. However, it was not until 1878 that Romania was recognized as an independent country and was constituted as the Kingdom of Romania in 1881. In the later decades of the nineteenth century the Romanian intellectuals irrevocably split into two primary ideological camps, both of which had divergent views concerning how the future Romania should be constructed. As in Bulgaria, these two visions were the liberal, or Europeanist, and the conservative, or traditional. While the liberal view aimed to emulate France, traditionalists revered the values of the peasantry and feared modernization. The two camps agree on one aspect of Romanian collective identity: the state should be “independent, collectivist (the idea that state interests trump individual interests) and exclusionary.”
After a period of stability, the years after WWI saw the borders of Romania expanding to what is now known as “România Mare”, or Greater Romania. Under the principle of self-determination that emerged in the interwar years, Romania expanded to include all historical Romanian sites, absorbing a number of sizable minorities, including Magyars (ethnic Hungarians), Germans, Jews, Ukrainians, Bulgarians, etc., for a total of about 28% of the population. These minorities were visible, recognized by the Romanian Constitution of 1923 and supported by legislation (concerning education, electoral, etc.), while national minorities were represented in the Parliament, and several of them created national parties. Anti-Semitism was, however, commonplace and Jews were “hostilely tolerated”.
During WWII, the diversity of the nation was significantly reduced, partly due to the loss of land, as well as by the light or deportation of Germans and Jews. The Communist state post-WWII was particularly violent in Roman and led to a reduction in population, as a result of poverty and persecution (it is estimated that around 2 million were killed during the communist regime). The Revolution of 1989 was “uncontrollable, passionate and violent” and the transition into the free market was plagued by demonstrations. It has been argued that Romania has become a special case, or even a worst-case scenario, “exemplary and indicative of the problems, rather than the promise, of the transition to democracy and the free market”, as the legitimacy of the government is continuously questioned as a result of incessant corruption. As a consequence, Romanians were eager to invest trust in the European Union in 2007 as some sort of guarantor of the rule of law and as a defense against their own government.
Even though Romania took an important Racism and xenophobia are, however, still prevalent in Romania. The Roma minority (3.3%) is still often targeted while the Hungarian minority (6.5%) overlooked.