CEU eTD Collection In requirements for of fulfillment the Ma thedegree partial of “Breaking” Social Identity“Breaking” Social through Diverse Supervisor: Professor The case of Moldovans in RomaniaThe case of Moldovans in Department ofPoliticalScience Central European University Budapest, Hungary Sorin CebotariSorin Submitted to Submitted (2013) By
Matteo FumagalliMatteo
Relational Web Relational
ster of Arts in Political Science Political Artsster in of
:
CEU eTD Collection and interact Romanians ifhe alike,withwhomto and has nopreference or Moldovans includes which web relational a have will person a if “weakened” be can identity and fundamental both, the at a themselves web. about relational perception personal diverse different a have by Moldovans influenced be can identity that and Romanians Mo Moldova respond typ specific a if observe to and Romania in Moldovans of identity social of character the into empirically t different Combining deconstruction identity on web relational personal of impact the and Romania in Moldovans of identity social analyze I thesis present the In dditional group beliefs levels. At the level of fundamental group beliefs, Moldovan social social Moldovan beliefs, group fundamental of level the At levels. beliefs group dditional ldovans inRomania.
the addressed question Irely question addressed the
IP 2012) (IPP o proa rltoa web relational personal of e
and on primary data (questionnaires and interviews) gathered for for gathered interviews) and (questionnaires data primary on and ertcl prahs design I approaches heoretical Results show Results
on secondary data from Barometer of Public Opinion in Opinion Public of Barometer from data secondary on
that Moldovans do have a different social identity from socialfrom identity a different dohave that Moldovans Abstract
influence i
o te ae f odvn i Romania. in Moldovans of case the for
s
dniy eosrcin I odr to order In deconstruction. identity mdl hc alw t explore to allows which model a whom to trust. whom totrust.
CEU eTD Collection that theyme. for were there would have b ILast tothankmy like would notthefamily least alwaysIt but who was me. supporting even they though hadthings better todo. and encouragedyears, me patiently who listened and two inthe past have thesis my presented other and colleagues my all to thanks big certainly And thesis. the on me advising and listening by that, wanted never he although construction, identity on specialist th my of drafts the all revising showed he patience the for Rooney Thomas Instructor, Writing my also thank to like would I comments. helpful extremely and interest sincere for Sgier Lea discuss to interest and time found always who Littvay Levente Professor to consultations long and help permanent for thanks Special thesis. the of completion successful the to consistently contributed and His research. of period the importanc crucial a of be to proved guidance all throughout Matteo me Professor directed supervisor, and and supported mentor who my Fumagalli, to gratitude my express to like would I esis. Great thanks I should say to my colleague and friend Florin Zubascu, who became a a became who Zubascu, Florin friend and colleague my to say should I thanks Great esis. een an impossible challengeyears anknowingeen without impossible tomanagewell past two and help me in constructing my work. Also, I am thankful to Professor to thankful am I Also, work. myconstructing in me help and
Acknowledgements
e during the most difficult stages of the research the of stages difficult most the during e ii
people, to whom I whom to people, CEU eTD Collection BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDICES CONCLUSIONS IDENTITY? DIVE DOES 6. CHAPTER ARE MOLDO 5. CHAPTER METHODOLO 4. CHAPTER DEVELOPIN 3. CHAPTER IDENTITY 2. CHAPTER PICTURING 1. CHAPTER INTRODUCTION AND FIGURES OF LIST CONTENTS OF TABLE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ABSTRACT A A GROUP BELIEFS 6.4 BELIEFS 6.3 5.4 5.3 5.2 5.1 4.2 4.1 3.2 3.1 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.1 ...... PPENDIX PPENDIX variables included variables 6.3.2 6.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.1
D M M C P C C D N S P S D ? D
OPULATION OCIAL RIMORDIALISTAND OCIAL OES DIVERSE OES PERSONAL DIVERSE OES RELATION O ONSTRUCTING SELECTIONASE ONCEPT OPERATIONALIZ ECONSTRUCTING ETWORKS AND
...... OLDOVANSFROM OLDOVANSFROM Identity Shifting/Constructi Identity Definitions ...... Personal relational web and fundamental group beliefs with relationship and sport sport and with relationship beliefs group fundamental and web relational Personal group fundamental and web relational Personal 2. 1. M
Q R ...... OLDOVANS EGRESSION UESTIONNAIRE
...... ?
I I ...... DENTITIES DENTITYAND
...... ,
......
S ......
AMPLING AND ...... AND NETWORKING. MAPP AND NETWORKING. I TABLES P H DENTITY AT THE
...... RSE RELATIONAL WEB I WEB RELATIONAL RSE – ERSONAL G THEORETICAL ARGUME THEORETICAL G IDENTITY” “MOLDOVAN
OLD A
M VANS DIFFERENT FROM FROM DIFFERENT VANS H ...... W R M GICAL APPROACH GICAL C EGEMONICIDENTITY TH ODELS FOR OMANIA OLDOVA , HYIS D
ONSTRUCTIVISTAPPROA I ...... NTERVIEW IVERSE ...... AL WEB D ATION
RELATIONAL INFLU WEB ...... IFFERENT M R ...... OLDOVA – M TableofContents ELATIONAL – ...... ng
A EASUREMENT N
...... A
P INFLUENCETHE DECONS ETWORKING H P
...... PERSPECTIVEON G ERSONAL ERSPECTIVEON IGH ...... UIDE ANDTHE S ...... I OCIAL ...... MPORTANT P ...... OLITICALLEVEL W
...... iii EB ROUGHDIVERSE RELATI R ......
I
...... T DENTITYFROM
ELATIONAL ...... NFLUENCE MOLDOVAN’S MOLDOVAN’S NFLUENCE CHTOWARD IDENTITY
...... OOLS ING THE THEORETICAL THEORETICAL THE ING ...... ROMANIANS? NT ENCE DECONSTRUCTTHE ? ...... S ......
S ...... S UMMARYOF THE ......
ELF
ELF ...... M ...... OLDOVANSIN
...... - ...... - W TRUCTIONOF FUNDAMEN I ...... I DENTIFICATION
DENTIFICATION ...... EB AND ...... R ...... OMANIANS ......
...... F ...... ONAL WEB
...... UNDAMENTALGROUP BEL I R ...... NTERVIEWS ...... OMANIA ...... ? ......
......
...... IONOF ADDITIONAL DEBATE ...... SOCIAL SOCIAL ......
......
......
...... TAL GROUP ......
...... IEFS .. . . .
29 23 20 20 17 14 12 12 11 10 10 71 65 63 63 59 54 51 47 47 45 42 39 35 34 34 30 29 IV III
6 1 II
I
CEU eTD Collection Measurement tool 2.Interview. Measurement tool 1,Questionnaire. Table 10 Summary the of interviews with the main findings onthe researched subject Table 9. Summary the of interviews with the main findings onthe researched subject Relationship variable included Table 8. Necessity to interact with people from same the regionandPersonal Relational Web. Table 7. Bessarabians Table 6.Perceived difference between Moldovans and Romanians andPersonal Relational Web. sport variables excluded Table 5. Interactions with people from same the region andDiverse relational web. Relationship and Table 4. Perceived difference between Moldovans and Romanians andPerso Relationship andSport Included)Variables Table 3. Relati Relationship andSport Included)Variables Table 2. Relationship between Personal Relational Web andFundamental Group Beliefs (Without Table 1 Correlation between fundamental group beliefs variables Figure 7.Bessarabians Figure 6.Perceived difference between Moldovans and Romanians Figure 5Moldovans‟ Future Expectation Figure 4Moldovans‟ attitude toward official language Figure 3Operationalization scheme Social for Networking Figure 2Operationalization scheme Social for Identity Figure 1
Theoretical Argument onship between Personal Relational Web andFundamental Group Beliefs (With – -
United andDistinct Group and Personal Relational We ...... anddistinctUnited group
......
List ofList Figures and Tables – ......
Schematic Representation
......
......
......
...... iv
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...... nal Relational Web...... b.
......
......
......
....
...
64 63 63 52 48 46 41 40 38 37 27 24 21 67 65 69 68 65 64
CEU eTD Collection Austro under 1 will state national of type specific a with combined backgrounds, social different how details in presenting is Laitin David Kolsto, to complementary Somehow desires. and identification differ have will backgrounds different with Diasporas that indicates which states 1996) Republics diaspora Diasporas different fourteen as it research should we body unitary post in diaspora Russian seeing of instead that fact the for arguing is he post in change who identity of issue particular authors the address the of One intensified. Europe Eastern the deconstruction, for construction, identities of identities, accommodation over debates the Union Soviet of fall the After beliefs. gro and identity of type different develop time same the at but characteristics ethnical their maintained groups those administration and state another of part a As Slovakia. and Serbia, Herzegov and Bosnia Croatia, in Serbs Moldova; countries, Baltic Ukraine, eastern in Russians for case the is That that. on consenting or participating without countries different in live and separated al redrawing borders permanent These village home their leaving without lifetime their during countries different three in live could one changes border those of result a As change. border of process permanent a to lead dissolu the important more and Yugoslavia, or Union Soviet as such bodies supranational diverse of evolution and apparition the wars, world two The 20 The
One can look for example at Bucovina, at the present moment a part of Ukraine, till 1918 this region was was region this 1918 till of Ukraine, part a moment presentthe at Bucovina, forexample at look can One th
- century can be characterized as a century of permanent border change in Europe. Europe. in change border permanent of century a as characterized be can century
An i An - Hungarian administration, between 1918 between administration, Hungarian n, ooo Rmnas n odv ad kan, ugras n Romania, in Hungarians Ukraine, and Moldova in Romanians Kosovo; ina, dentity of its own? Possible identity trajectories for Russians in Former Soviet Soviet Former in Russians for trajectories identityPossible own? its of dentity . Kolsto‟s argument relies mainly on the empirical evidence from post from evidence empirical the on mainly relies argument Kolsto‟s
Introduction so lead to a situation were the same ethnic groups are groups ethnic same the were situation a to lead so 1 -
1940 1940 –
part of Romania, from 1940 part of Ukraine. part 1940 from of Romania, part - soviet spac soviet
tion of those multinational states multinational those of tion e is Pal Kolsto. In his work work his In Kolsto. Pal is e
(Kolsto, The new Russian Russian new The (Kolsto, - oit pc s a as space soviet ent type of of type ent - soviet
up 1 . CEU eTD Collection 16) behaviors.” of set present the and history the to connected plausibly as see not) or group the assigned of members are whenever other, (or (and they that membership category social a a in claimmembership) they when them) to assign other (or themselves by formulated individuals. of networks personal the analyzing p The emerged. identity of type specific a way the evaluating or measuring of aspect important an Veen2005) der Vanand (Rousseau Deutch Karl like authors hand, other the On imbedded. is group which in context social big the and chara group the of emphasis more nation Laitin others, from different is it how and occurred identity of type what observe to order In change. to come identities which delimitation? c as “ethnicity” on drawing not is which identity constructed a be can robust how In so? words, deconstructed, other theconstructed identitiesiftheyand are do toobservehow main the While groups?” ethnic same the within even emerged identities different “How/why question the 1998) c on depending diaspora Russian of types different produce
. As one can observe, the main theoretical debate at the present moment is centered on centered is moment present the at debate theoretical main the observe, can one As . - eet eerh is o o in go to aims research resent ulig n usa n te post the and Russia in building
Another important part of the debate on the field is linked with the “ways” through “ways” the with linked is field the on debate the of part important Another Dush 1953) (Deutsch
theoretical debate is going along these lines, it would be useful to go beyond beyond go to useful be would it lines, these along going is debate theoretical Laitin wih rsns oil identity social presents which ‟ Erikson ,
(Laitin 1998) (Laitin Eisn 1968) (Erikson cteristics as well as at the specific historical background historical specific the at as well as cteristics , bring into discussion the individual/personal networks as individual/personalas networksthe discussion into bring , - ep ih h aayi o iett dcntuto by deconstruction identity of analysis the with deep - oit tts 2000) states Soviet 2 , Kolstlo ,
,
n y eerh wl rl on rely will I research my In Gellner or or Gellner
(Kolsto, Political construction sites : sites construction Political (Kolsto,
s lbl ta pol asg t assign people that “labels as Barth , ountry they were living were they ountry oseu n vn e Veen der van and Rousseau
Brh 1998) (Barth
(Laitin 1998, (Laitin
r putting are riteria for for riteria definition
(Laitin (Laitin o
CEU eTD Collection din 3 Romania. of eastern part in region Moldova and of Moldova Republic between differentiate to order in Romania used in 2 total 800.000 exceed the outside emigrants the of number of estimates Some emigrate. to choose Moldovans abroad, opportunities study ca some in but Moldova, in situation economic the of because Mostly citizens. its of mobility high by characterized is Moldova because gap important an as seen identification and identity Moldovan of su the on research important lack however we Moldova for case interesting this Having differences robust how observing for allows Romania from (Hungarians similitude ethnic by encouraged immigration of context, broader a in process the see can go and abroad from Romanians ethnic toward government Romanian by promoted policy educational of post in conflict violent backgrounds political different and evolution historical the to due Romanians to compared identity social different a developed that group ethnic Like background. institutional and political different a to exposed where Romania, outside lived However traditions). and religion, Mold Russia, to relation (Be inquir will thesis before, raised questions the address to order In
http://www.dprp.gov.ro/2800 willI use t - r ssaarabians) -
moldova n h cs o Rsin fo te na abroad”, “near the from Russians of case the in 3
to study in Romania. This specific situation is very interesting first of all because we we because all of first interesting very is situation specific This Romania. in study to
young people from Moldova were enc were Moldova from people young
erms Moldavians and Bessarabians interchangeable. Bessarabia is the other name for the Moldova Moldova the name for other the is Bessarabia interchangeable. Bessarabians and erms Moldavians .
- din - 2 alte
h cm t Rmna Js a Rsin i fre sve rpbis in republics soviet former in Russians as Just Romania. to came who - state - Soviet societies : the cases of Estonia and Moldova 2002) Moldova and Estonia of cases the : societies Soviet - ovans share the same ethnic characteristics as Romanians (language, Romanians as characteristics ethnic same the share ovans invecinate
- de in Hungary, Croats from Serbia in Croatia) but also because it because also but Croatia) in Serbia from Croats Hungary, in -
locuri a constructed identity constructed a - si , -
- in a due to the specific historical evolutions Moldovans who Moldovans evolutions historical specific the to due - - etnicilor universitatile
seily usd te country the outside especially - romani 3 ouraged to apply for for apply to ouraged
- de
(Schwartz 2007) (Schwartz - - cu stat - domiciliul
is - romanesti , when it is not encouraged not is it when , odvn cud e considered be could Moldovans
( Kolsto, National integration and and integration National Kolsto, - stabil - e into the case of Moldovans Moldovans of case the into e pe , comparing to the country the to comparing , ntru - a scholarship in Romania in scholarship a in - strainatate/ - tineri Ti fc cud be could fact This . e as bcue of because also ses - de - origine
. As a result a As . by ethnic ethnic by - romana bject
an an - CEU eTD Collection 5 4 in work my separate will I above raised questions the answer and address to able be to p the of contribution important most the represent will and analysis data empirical the on completely rely will I one, second the for answer the then data, empirical Iraised addresswill inthe introduction Romanian passport. official by account into taken not are which Romania in Moldovans of number bigger a have can we that fact the to attention pay citizenship Romanian Romania Foundation Soros to According government. Romanian by promoted policy citizenship the 18.000 is Romania in t estimates some to According before. stated question Romania that fact the Italy, themain emigrationareoffers countries afor veryAlthough study. caseRussia, us interesting destinations emigration with contrast in which population the of mobility high a denotes fact citizens mil 3.55 of population
http://www.stiriong.ro/library/files/raport_cetatenie_ro.pdf http://www.statistica.md/category.php?l=ro&idc=103&
Spain While answering the first question I will rely on literature and on primary/secondary primary/secondary on and literature on rely will I question first the answering While 2. 1. problem the manner empirical and scientific a in investigate to able be to order In
- Does a diverse - Do Moldovans have a
(Schwartz 2007) (Schwartz Will adiverseWill web relational modify thesocial ofMoldov identity areWhich themain differences/similaritiesidentifiedby identity Moldovans?
. 5 . Certainly not all of them moved to Romania, nevertheless we should should we nevertheless Romania, to moved them of all not Certainly . ns Nevertheless I would be very cautious with those numbers because of of because numbers those with cautious very be would I Nevertheless
are personal relational webpersonal relational , fr ,
the present research aims to observe Moldovans in Romania for Romania in Moldovans observe to aims research present the
o a ehial different ethnically an not 4 om 1994 to 2010 ap 2010 to 1994 om
one can observe that more than ¼ work or study abroad. This abroad.study or work ¼ than more that observe can one
different social identity from Romanians? Romanians? identity social from different
following statistics just because they entered the country with with country the entered they because just statistics 4
question influence shifting? identity proximately 25 proximately
he approximate number of Moldovans Moldovans of number approximate he s group
in myresearch: , thus we can tests for the the for tests can we thus , 0,000 Moldovans obtained Moldovans 0,000 resent paper. In order order In paper. resent
a study made by by made study a
ans?
CEU eTD Collection the analysis ofqualitative and certainly testing. quantitativeand data thehypothesis last The sampling of type the discuss alon variables main th In part. methodological web relational networking/personal and identity three first the the in argument theoretical my explain and construct will I debate, theoretical existing the within research present the place the and evolution formation, construction/deconstruction, identity‟s social over debate theoretical context. historical broader o evolution historical the mainly present will aspects. addressdifferent will which parts distinct
main defi main chapter
parts I will present and engage with engage and present will I parts
will be dedic be will nitions nitions ih h ol used tools the with g of identity and social networks/personal relational web relational networks/personal social and identity of e fourth e In the In
used along with possible with along used ated mostly to the analysis of data gathered, which would imply would which gathered, data of analysis the to mostly ated third second
chapter I will prese will I chapter
chapter
chapter,
to measure each variable. Also in this part I wil I part this in Also variable. each measure to . Although it is not stated explicitl stated not is it Although . f “Moldovan Identity” as such, presenting it in a in it presenting such, asIdentity” “Moldovan f 5
Te hoeia pr wl b floe by followed be will part theoretical The . the present research will address mainly the the mainly address will research present the
Inthe literature which discusses identity/social identity/social discusses which literature
nt the operationalization scheme of the of scheme operationalization the nt metodological first chapter first
of the present research I research present the of limitations of the study. study. the of limitations y,
during all of all during . In order to to order In .
l ,
CEU eTD Collection Transylv with unification 9 8 1917 7 Romania. modern of basis formed the and united Moldova) of Republic ca eastern part, 6 with unification for advocating were some scenarios, different for pushing forces different However 1991. August of 2 independenceon republics,declared Moldovaits soviet otherby examples of also the but that, by Enforced Moldova. in started Romania with unification and dominance soviet from officials soviet by Moldova in enforced and promoted was Romanian from different identity, Moldovan a of of policy creation strong a period this During Republic. Soviet a became Moldova and Moldova 2002) off Romania, by administered was Dniester and Prut between territory the 1944, till 1941 from post territory the in administration poli strong a Also Russian. was region the in language official the and legislation Russian the to according administered was Moldova structure this of component a As Empire. Tsarist the Bein inhabitants. its of construction identity and identification of process the much very influenced which centuries country a rea several for interesting is Moldova of case The
This moment is also known as the creation of Great Romania, along with Moldova, Romania achieved Romania Moldova, with along Great Romania, of creation the as alsoknown is This moment ibid http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/388005/Moldova/42828/The north and Romania from region Moldova Moldova, of Republic from composed was Moldova of Principality ca lnug ad alphabet and language icial y f ooiain a pooe i odr o nrae upr fr h Russian the for support increase to order in promoted was colonization of cy -
ol Wr stain Mloa ntd ih h Romania the with united Moldova situation, I War World Atr h dfa i te eod ol Wa World Second the in defeat the After .
which got through serious territorial, political and social changes during the last the during changes social and political territorial, serious through got which lled Bucovina. In 1859, the principality of Muntenia and the principality of Moldova (without (without of Moldova principality the and Muntenia of principality the 1859, In lled Bucovina. ania, Bucovina and Southern Dobruja. Southern and Bucovina ania, Chapter1.Picturing “Moldovan Identity” g separated from Principality of Moldova of Principality from separated g
,
(Muntean 2002, 198) 2002, (Muntean h ftr oinain f h cuty eand ey unclear, very remained country the of orientation future the
8 . In 1918 as a result of dissolution of Tsarist Empire, and the and Empire, Tsarist of dissolution of result a as 1918 In . hne t Rmna, ai respectively Latin Romanian, to changed 6
sons. To start with the fact that Moldova that fact the with start To sons. . In 1989 a strong movement for liberation for movement strong a 1989 In .
r, Romania was forced to retreat from from retreat to forced was Romania r,
- 6 Russian 9
Fo 11 tl 14 a 1940 till 1918 From . in 1812 in - administration 7
it was included in included was it (Milescu
- - 1812 Spătaru Spătaru - 7 nd - is th
CEU eTD Collection elected indirectly, although Moldovans, options, two between that argue can we respect s present the in had they benefits the all lose will they that fear the with related strongly was fact that arguing, is King As Romanians. and re Moldovans between difference the on ideology, although soviet former the with along advocated, members, party Agrarian hand, other the On option. Romania with unification the sustained also they therefore language, and culture of unity the for much very advocated front Popular orientation. future to regard with much very Moldov of independence the of establishment the in role important an played movements both Although nomenclature. agricultural from composed mostly was second the intellectuals by supported was and front Popular by represented was position first the While pro along King, to according divided, were years following the then independence, the for mobilization general a by characterized and Front National forces: different two by mainly represented was Moldova in ‟90 of beginning the at spectrum political it, presenting is he As „90s. of beginning the at Chisinau from situation political the is arguments King‟s to respect overview historical a since issue this on detail into go not will I region; the of background historical of analysis close a from national ther back was it because closely arguments sinc years 19 already article his in King Charles by formulated ideas the of and evolution influenced which t In factors Moldova. in identity of types particular important of construction some remark to like would I Here Russia. building for some Romania,
identity was framed, and from where it continued to evolve. King starts his inquiry his starts King evolve. to continued it where from and framed, was identity h woe h article, the wrote he e of of an independent Moldovan state, some for stre for some state, Moldovan independent an
was - unionist and pro and unionist already presented already ystem after the unification the after ystem e, at the beginning of 90‟ when 90‟ of beginning the at e,
7 it
is
ut iprat o ok t oe f his of some at look to important quite
from 1994 from - gain. f h pro ‟89 period the If Agrarians. independence issue independence . What I would like would I What . his respect I would I respect his onzn te independence, the cognizing (King 1994) (King
(King 1994, 352) 1994, (King
(King 1994, 345) 1994, (King
ngthen ties with with ties ngthen the debate over over debate the to discuss with discuss to a, they differed differed they a, . Although it is it Although .
address some address - 9 was ‟90 . In this In . .
CEU eTD Collection 10 Moldovans should clear understanding where variables. There isno holding common few just Roman essence the in are particularities, Moldovans that assumption the from starting is Igor While chapter. their through arguing are they which assumptions, different radically from starts authors the beginning the from that observe easily can one but issues, Skvortsova 2002) Moldova and Estonia of cases Kolsto Pal by authors Moldovan two from perspectivesdifferent two observe to interesting i differences The fact national whichbyquiteclearly with itselfindicate building ontheproblems process. Moldovan is Moldova in language Although process. building nation examplesoffrozen eloquent most ofthe one be can which with thelanguage, official problem unsolved the still is There identity. national of question the to respect with much sit political the on there From ‟90. of beginning the at already used be to seems Romanians not are Moldovans that idea the nevertheless further, go should Moldova where idea clear any had parties the of none arguments King‟s from observe over being from far was Moldova in process building national that fact 355) his changed idea the position, supported and discourse “Moldovanists” the from ‟90 of beginning the at distance to tried th party agrarian of favor during in election support its lost Front Popular observes, rightly King As independence.
http://www.presedinte.md/const.php?page=8100 . The change in electoral support, along with the change on change the with along support, electoral in change The . Svrsv 2002) (Skvortsova .
Alla (Kolsto, National integration and violent conflic violent and integration National (Kolsto, n opinion toward Moldovan identity go even further than politics. It is is It politics. than further even go identity Moldovan toward opinion n
on the contrary, pictures Moldovans as totally different from Romanians, from different totally as Moldovans pictures contrary, the on
the Con the
rt to hpes ec o te ddctd to dedicated them of each chapters, two wrote that Moldovans and different from Romanians from different and Moldovans that
(King 1994, 356) 1994, (King 10 stitution of Republic of Moldova state Moldova of Republic of stitution , children in schools are thought Romanian language, a language, Romanian thought are schools in children , . In this book this In .
8
Igor Munteanu Igor . Even the president, Mircea Snegur, who Snegur, Mircea president, the Even . uation from Chisinau changed not so not changed Chisinau from uation t in post in t the
(Muntean 2002) (Muntean official level denotes the denotes level official - Soviet societies : the : societies Soviet as wt specific with ians, . More, as we can can we as More, . s
in a book editedbook a in that the official the that
(King 1994, 1994, (King different a
and Alla Alla and 1994 e
al al CEU eTD Collection encourage a and basis offer which background political im and an in social influence different a have which but citizenship, receive to entitled are which Serbia, or Romania Ukraine, from Hungarians of case the is framework can which case Another pro where and either, over not is process building national the were Ukraine in struggle identity national the be can eloquent most trend broader a in also included observe. to case important and interesting an represent Moldovans evolutions, and transformations many so to exposed al in All not. or Romanians are they weather and go
otn wy hi sca iett. n hs epc, tdig Moldova studying respect, this In identity. social their way portant
e eerhd ne te ae hoeia ad methodological and theoretical same the under researched be for further somecomparative possible on different analysiscases.
aig hs seii priuaiis h peet ae a be can case present the particularities specific these Having of identity struggles in Eastern Europe. Maybe one of the the of one Maybe Europe. Eastern in struggles identity of - usa ves r opsd y pro by opposed are views Russian 9
l, the situation is unclear till now. Being now. till unclear is situation the l, - Ukrainian. can
CEU eTD Collection by variable. this enforced not are identities where case a to closely look or to choose I constructiontherefore deconstruction, identity on impact strong very a have can ethnicity constructed, socially constructed socially is it Although ethnicity. as thesis present the respect, this In others. than factors external to respect with rigid more be can them of some ourse also change to able be will we “paradigms” interaction our changing by that expect I sense this In we relational homogenous a “diverse”, term the highlight to important is it Here web. relational diverse a to exposed is it if deconstructed be can identity social context this In interactions. daily r be to labels those expect cannot them to assign peoples, other or themselves, people labels sel is she or he discussion the perceptionabout influencehis change will or whichnetwork interaction an to predisposed a start person a moment the From interactions. social to robust al be to them expect we can interactions daily from constructed are identities that argued daily is it our Since interactions. during “eat” we what are we that say even can we interactions; daily our from thr argued is It manner. detailed a in explore and identities on web, debate relational theoretical main the into inquiry the starting Before 2.1 Chapter2. Identityand Networking. Mappingthe Theoretical Debate f. Let us just have a brief look on what identity is. After all, as Laitin is arguing, it is the is it arguing, is Laitin as all, After is. identity what on look brief a have just us Let f.
Social Social vs Ee tog iett is identity though Even lves. b can be quite big, but at the same time quite useless in deconstructingin identities.useless quitetime same the at but big, quite becan b
Identity Identity Diverseand Networking
wl itoue h mi epcac ad h rltosi I ol lk to like would I relationship the and expectance main the introduce will I
take a closer look closer a take so deconstructed by daily interactions? We can expect identities to be be to identities expect can We interactions? daily by deconstructed so gd n sai; hs cn e nlecd y h changing the by influenced be can those static; and igid
to a case were identity is not enforced by a strong factor strong a by enforced not is identity were case a to
oily osrce i i important is it constructed socially oughout the literature that identity is constructed is identity that literature the oughout 10
o a lat e a prev i a partially as it perceive can we least at or ,
Lii 19, 16) 1998, (Laitin to observe that that observe to W certainly We . personal
CEU eTD Collection relati and position social their of terms in outcomes different to lead will diaspora the of decisions different that arguing is Kolsto abroad. near the in diaspora Russian for evolutions identity possible different 8 presenting I diaspora. Russian for evolution identity possible of matrix choice social identit inheritance and blood on than rather choice and construction on mainly relies identification therefore identity, own his construct and it, presents Laitin as perspective, importa the for argues which perspe opposite the have we hand other the On predetermined. ow your construct to or choose to impossible quite is it words other In primordialism as known predetermined was group national change to impossible therefore an individual an to inherent being as identities national to approach Stalin‟s was identification national and ide national toward impact important an book, his in remarks Laintin David As identities. toward approaches different two mainly are there that acknowledge should we identity social th starting Before theparticularand toinvestigate. explain aspectlike would we ofidentity define we if way meaningful a in identity research to possible is it that believe still I point, to represent could identity 1) 2000; "Identity" Beyond Cooper, and (Brubaker it puts Brubaker as all” at nothing or […] little too […], much too mean to tends “Identity 2.2
y Primord
o a rgd rca o clua realit cultural or racial rigid, as not
of individuals. In the same direction it would be useful to observe Kolsto‟s Kolsto‟s observe to useful be would it direction same the In individuals. of ialist and Constructivist and ialist approach identity toward e inquiry in the theoretical fundaments of social constructed character of of character constructed social of fundaments theoretical the in inquiry e
(Shils 1957) (Shils
ay hns ad hrfr b a sls tr a oe particular one at term useless a be therefore and things, many nce of understanding identity understanding of nce , according to Stalin‟s perspective. This type of approach is approach of type This perspective. Stalin‟s to according , focuses
and it mainly is advocating for the rigidity of identity. identity. of rigidity the for advocating is mainly it and ons with other social groups social other with ons
more more
(Laitin 1998, 13 1998, (Laitin y 11
(Laitin 1998, 11) 1998, (Laitin
which which
on the possibility of an individual to choose choose to individual an of possibility the on Atog I ge wt te da that idea the with agree I Although . is
rdtrie, bu predetermined,
constructed like an art object. This object. art an like constructed - 16) ctive, of constructed identity constructed of ctive, . Belonging to one nation or nation one to Belonging . . Thus we should u should we Thus . hs ril Pl oso is Kolsto Pal article his n
(Kolsto, The new Russian Russian new The (Kolsto,
iett wih is which identity n
mr a a fluid a as more t nderstand nderstand a ,
CEU eTD Collection Laitin‟ by formulated is rely will I which on definition main The identity. social of concept the to mainly refer will I work present the In individuals. between interactions by influenced construction/dec the how observe to aims paper present The rigidpossible social identity. part ofthe a about argument the carefully consider will time same the in but identity, toward perspective constructivis the within mainly operate will work present The identity. of aspect primordial 1968) into thatthereaspectstake account besome into the fact might w ofidentity themain ofargumentsWhile bulk we constructivistare perspective, enforcing also the should but alsoafterduringfall the thesoviet period and exposed contexts were Romanians and Moldovans which to background different political and social distinct the to from stand differences the Romanians, exposed as characteristics ethnic same the being mainly have of result argu same a the Following variables. cultural/social/economic as occurred republics soviet former in Russians between differences that arguing is Kolsto similitudes. important at features, different of lot a have Romania in Moldovans and republics soviet former in Russians that though Even research. present the of idea the also support that evidence important is This group. ethnic same the within identities different 1996) Republics diaspora 2.3.1
pcfc elte wih a cnttt pra constitute can which realities specific Fr odvn i Rmna h trioil aibe ol b cniee a a quasi a as considered be could variable territorial the Romania in Moldovans For .
Definitions Definitions 2.3 -
An identity of its own? Possible identity trajectories for Russians in Former Soviet Soviet Former in Russians for trajectories identityPossible own? its of identity An
Social IdentitiesSocial Ti priua agmn i avctn fr h fc ta the that fact the for advocating is argument particular This .
12 of Soviet Union. tcly gvn at f h identity the of part given a ctically
ment we can say that Moldovans that say can we ment the same time we can see some see can we time same the onstruction of social ide social of onstruction
hich are hich rooted deeply e ol be could re
(Erikson (Erikson ntity
is - t CEU eTD Collection powerful, very a from evolution continuous a be to identities social of system specific a of changing the believe I group referring mostlybeliefs behavior. of tothe shared set the to mostly terms, fundamentalexplicit clearly inmore beliefs same just idea about referring speaking the Bar behavior. of set present the to also and group the of history the to members that important is it that remarks Laitin categorization. Tal‟s Bar and definition Laitin‟s between point an common highlight important to like would I Romania. in identity social Moldovan‟s of component clear fu both,find to expect Ibecauseresearchpresent the for a point important an is It Russian). speak can we Bessarabians to as (ex: belonging group specific characteristic being as though are beliefs additional then Bessarabians), are we (ex: main the being as representation discursive main the constitute saw and existence group for argument are beliefs fundamental If beliefs. additional and fundamental Bar idea, this Developing “groupness” their defying as consider (b) and share, they that aware are (a) members group that convictions as defined are “[…] which beliefs group of terms id social of Bar with it combine will I operationalizable more and clearer it make to order in but research, my for helpful quite is definition Laitin‟s history ofbehaviors.” and thepresent set the to connected plausibly as see not) or group the of members whenever other, (and they that category social a in membership) assigned are (or membership a claim they when them) assign people that “labels as identity social presents and entity. In his article, Bar article, his In entity.
ru hsoy bcgon, motn ietfcto vral, n additional and variable, identification important background, history, group hgmnc gop dniy o utpe dniis r backwards. or identities multiple to identity group “hegemonic” - Tal stresses that each group is defined by a specific set of of set specific a by defined is group each that stresses Tal - Tal argues that social identity should be understood in understood be should identity social that argues Tal
(Laitin 1998,16) of the group regard themselves as being connected connected being as themselves regard group the of - Tal‟s analysis of group beliefs as an expression an as beliefs group of analysis Tal‟s 13
ndamental and additional beliefs, as a asbeliefs, additional andndamental .
to themselves (or other assign to to assign other (or themselves to - Tal‟s categorization is categorization Tal‟s
(Bar - a 1998; Tal of groupness of 36) .
CEU eTD Collection analysis. of category with overlapping an to lead can which practice, of category a as well as used is “identity” word the that fact the is puzzling more even is What identity. through things different understand authors Different it. in variation e and identityevaluate to which through measurement specific a find to hard very is It 2.3.2 schemata,at the butmoreweakening ofmain identity. hegemonic individual of Because perception. own, their on people ask to have you beliefs group additional or fundamental the identify to order in since task complex a is This beliefs. group additional fundamentaland since questioners through identities alternative 2005) Veen der Van and (Rousseau fo imp certainly is it While “non the of distrust or view negative on rely time same the at which beliefs group additional and is identity hegemonic that argue would Bar of light the In identities. complementary or competing strong moment same the at have to identity hegemonic strong this has who person a for possible ide hegemonic of idea the to reference with remark to important is What stereotypes. perceptions, legends, values, norms, cultural beliefs, of set context hegemony Gramsci cultural by analyzed of concept the to mainly refer will I identity “Hegemonic” Defining u t remember to us r -
group” members.
Identity Shifting/Constructing will mean dominant identification of an individual with a group, through a specific a through group, a with individual an of identification dominant mean will ht h sm idvda my ae oe hn n iett a te time the at identity one than more have may individual same the that
Blo ad rmly 99 387 1999, Trombley and (Bullok these causes I will pay attention not so much to the multiple identity identity multiple the to much so not attention pay will I causes these ortant to observe how identity how observe to ortant . However it would be quite hard to search for potential for search to hard quite be would it However .
hrceie b srnl hglgtd fundamental highlighted strongly by characterized 14
it will require to research for other potential other for research to require will it tt i te at ht t ol nt be not would it that fact the is ntity
come - 388)
s In this context it is argued that argued is it context this In
to change, it is also importan also is it change, to Hegemonic .
- a‟ ctgrzto, I categorization, Tal‟s
dniy n this in identity special special t
CEU eTD Collection by made is direction this in point important Other emerged of had kind identity national new new a this networks, through and relationship and industrial networks, social their interact, people which in way the sense, this In networks. the on emphasis the putting identity an of shifting and formation the on conditions background social the of impact the examine who scholars by drawn is change identity of explanation identities formed newly improve to seek who entrepreneurs the of resources material and cultural the on emphasis on focused scholars explaining change. identity Some as focusing important in factors ondiverse are approaches different However change. to comes identity specific a how and why reasons c shifting; identity the particular settings social with accordance in identity social their rethink will always they identity specific a to adhere they if Even identities. for search permanent in are individual debate, theoretical b importanc The actualas identity apractice. category of the to referring without identity operationalized have I which through variables the to answer wor a or to respondents concept the expect I that Through stage. collection a data during minimized or excluded as identity, that fact the by prevented is work present the identity d case third the in all at nothing or other in less to cases, some in much too mean to tends identity ecause we expected identity expected we ecause approach will I which through way the and meaning the concepts main the on iscussion
the importance of state institution in creating and shifting social identities, other put more put other identities, social shifting and creating in institution state of importance the
(Brubaker and Cooper 2000, 1) 2000, Cooper and (Brubaker
was made clear made was e of identity shift for the present research cannot be overestimated. First of all of First overestimated. be cannot research present the for shift identity of e ertainly none of them can pretend to explain in a complete manner the the manner complete a in explain to pretend can them of none ertainly . The overlapping of category of practice and category of analysis in analysis of category and practice of category of overlapping The .
(Erikson 1968)
Lii 19, 1 1998, (Laitin for example Gellner argues that the industrialization has changed has industrialization the that argues Gellner example for
to be on a permanent evolution, as we saw from the existing existing the from saw we as evolution, permanent a on be to . Nevertheless I believe that through the definitions and definitions the through that believe I Nevertheless . . There might be different factors which can influence factors which different There be might .
3) Oe f h ms itrsig n complete and interesting most the of One . 15
Anderson in Rousseau and van der Veen, der van and Rousseau in Anderson
(Ge le 1983) llner acquire or or acquire wl be will d . CEU eTD Collection data of type this gather to possibility time. of period long time identity done have should measure I that do not to order in such, will as shifting I research present the in that point this at clear it make to like or for moment hard be will it change, clear identity of instance a observe cannot we Since belief. fundamental specific the by defined identity social of sense weak a have will she or he one, fundamental the reinforce that beliefs wi or lack will individual the If individual. an for salient become of to proportion the but order in ones additional the by reinforced one,be should belief fundamental the time same the At constructed a be argument. primordial the to favoring is case particular this in belief argument primordial/constructed this argue can we degree some To Moldova”. from come all “We beliefs group fundamental hard the of one be can of that consider prima may you others the with relations you on depending but group specific a of belief fundamental the to adhere can still you words, other In identity. social particular i in change a witness can we However beliefs. those of change qualitative a to lead will reality social individual‟s an beliefs additional Bar to According of behaviorspecific at tothe transformation which onesocial lead momentidentity. will of main a The weakening. or deconstruction identity on networks social of impact the observe will I identity.” eventuall and information, of spread the vocabulary, a of “ that states he ry importance or choose to neglect it. In the case of the Moldovans territorial affiliation territorial Moldovans the of case the In it. neglect to choose or importance ry rgument is that a specific type of relational web producesrgument relationalsome characteristics isthataspecificand type type of
(Rousseau and Van der Veen 2005, 689) 2005, Veen der Van and (Rousseau A social network that allows human interaction is necessary for the emergence emergence the for necessary is interaction human allows that network social A
- (Bar a, s Tal, ic tee r n aalbe aa n hs epc, n I ae o real no have I and respect, this in data available no are there Since - Tal and Danies 1998) Danies and Tal ca iett cn e eadd s opsd rm fu from composed as regarded be can identity ocial mportance individual puts on his social identity, how he/she rank a a rank he/she how identity, social his on puts individual mportance .
Instead of that of Instead . It will be misleading to argue that a change in change a that argue to misleading be will It . 16 me to measure it in the present paper. I would would I paper. present the in it measure to me
. Starting from this theoretical perspective perspective theoretical this from Starting . I will observe how diverse how observe will I te mrec o a collective a of emergence the y - series on same individuals for a a for individuals same on series ll lose other additional other lose ll dmna and ndamental relational relational
CEU eTD Collection of that to equal is group other from person a with interact to chance the when eminent that in networks communication add certainly can we Here beliefs. group additional and fundamental in incorporated be to or reflect to communication belie group additional and fundamental the with aspect that Linking communication. and conduits of patterns creating in web relational of importance the especially stress would I opinion. my in network personal a of characteristic in reflects ties social of importance political the on more focusing groups” and organizations political of kinds political for conduits servesas which the with ties to refersweb relational “Personal that states which Iglič Hajdejaby formulated definition mainly work to choose I mean. such as networking personal what of definition I research. this for appropriate more be can web relational personal of usage the that, of because another, to topic a from understandings different very with concept used broadly a is networking social field, the of evolution the of because Also, w present the of goal to toward explicit and accurate more be to web relational personal believe I understanding, same the reflect concepts both Although concept. network social observed, on lot a rely will I work present the In through diverse hegemonic web 2.4
a wae te eeoi iett. bevn te mat of impact the Observing identity. hegemonic the weaken can Networks and and RelationalWeb Personal Networks I choose to work mostly with personal relational web and minimize the usage of usage the minimize and web relational personal with mostly work to choose I dniy il lo u t osre f t s osbe o eosrc sca identity social deconstruct to possible is it if observe to us allow will identity relational web relational Karl H. Deutsch‟s idea who argued that we are prisoners of our of prisoners are we that argued who idea Deutsch‟s H. Karl .
es ta a hne n u iett wl b psil and possible be will identity our in change a that sense solidarity, communication, and recruitments to differentto recruitments and solidarity,communication, personal relational web relational personal
(Iglič 2003, 15) 2003, (Iglič 17
fs we can expect the patterns of conduit and and conduit of patterns the expect can we fs
t is t . The present definition, although definition, present The .
a difficult task to find a clear a find to task difficult a
concept. the same time the general the time same the As one could have have could one As eainl web relational
ork. ork. on CEU eTD Collection the be not might who someone trust to predisposition the addresses which measurement, t the kin/non the However, with network. linked be can aspect This interactions. of types specific for allocated trust the to refers characteristic that Mostly networking. the of measurement pers share may respondent the whom with individuals individual, the to close be to believed are who individuals of number the represent will network the of size The provenience. of territory the to related not are who Moldo from came who people words other in identity, “Hegemonic” the of value fundamental same the have who individual of number the to refer will kin of number The network. specific a to allocated trust the and network the of weight kin/non of proportion the to attention hold important individual an capital three social of level the address will I way complete a personal a of characteristics in networking measure to order In impact orsocial onindividual identity. serious have can group specific a to belonging the by exercised pressure the and networks not or assimilate to decision personal in also role play will specifican way important ina othersthe expectation tobehave inthenetwork ofthe argu is Laitin As change. identity “cascade” or “tip” the remarks the Laitinfor colleagues work the of as well as identityfamily and friends neighborhood, the of importance social with relation In constructs. rigid more much usually to compared as change that to opened understand more much be should can realities we political However him. about perception individuals‟ also but views political personal‟s just not shifting in important is networking that argue certainly can we you as group ethnic same the from person a with interacting utoties f ntok ersns prl qualitative purely a represents network a of rustworthiness r elational web elational onal matters. The weight of the network is the third third the is network the of weight The matters. onal - kin in the personal network, the s the network, personalthe in kin
which is argued to have important impact also on on also impact important have to argued is which 18 (Badescu and Ulsaner 2003) Ulsaner and (Badescu
(Laitin 1998, 21 1998, (Laitin ing the pressure from the community and community the from pressure the ing va, number of non of number va,
(Deutsch 1953) (Deutsch - 23) ize of the network, the the network,the of ize . Thus as w as Thus .
- identities which are are which identities kin being all others others all being kin . Thus I will pay will I Thus . . For th For . - i tps of types kin e can see, see, can e at matter matter at CEU eTD Collection scale will beaddressed vice or network the of member
in a morethefollowing detailedin in manner chapters. - versa. The operationalization scheme and the measurement the and scheme operationalization The versa. 19
CEU eTD Collection Ifollowing argument. believethetooffer representation the scheme best for visual my cross the described by resembles identity, hegemonic weakened a with schemata, identification. for categories possible other t of weakening the Through web diverse Therefore shifting. identity of process continuous a as understood diverse deconstruct expect I that, from forward Moving networks social Deutsch to Referring argument. theoretical my of logic the part present the in explain will I above presented debate theoretical the on Relying thus thebuildingmodel requiredalso approach. ofthe anew pr the in researched puzzle the even since one driven problem more is it theory, specific a on rest not does design Theoretical Romania. in Moldovans for designed specifically not is and cases different to applied be can it way Als perspectives. theoretical different together brings which one new completely a constructing rather model, developed a applying not am I since research present co the of novelties model, the of one new is That arguments. completely and perspectives theoretical a different construct to preferred o research present the For 3.1
Deconstructing Hegemonic identityDeconstructing through diverse can workcan onbothsidesofidentity shifting. ion of social identity. Construction and deconstruction of social identity should be should identitysocial of deconstruction and Construction identity. social of ion
Tom Risse /personal relational web relational /personal Chapter3.Developing TheoreticalArgument
(Risse 2004,153) (Risse he hegemonic identity we will encourage also the construction of construction the also encourage will we identity hegemonic he
to be an important factor in construction of identity. identity. of construction in factor important an be to .
esent paper was not researched explicitly before, before, explicitly researched not was paper esent 20 n hs respect this In
esnl eainl web relational personal n Anderson and
ti specific this , o the model is designed in a a in designed is model the o
relational web Dush 1953) (Deutsch personal relational relational personal - cutting identities identities cutting
type of identity identity of type
to lead to the the to lead to I believe I ,
mbining
CEU eTD Collection characterized be can which (FB1) belief fundamental clear a of presence the by characterized go. will research the and paper iden social T1, moment the at that observe can debate,we theoretical the from theEvolving which in way the clear make to order in argument theoretical main the De argument. of frame simplified a as understood be should scheme present The T2 “Hege T1
“Non are men are Russianwe speak (ex: can Additional beliefs Moldova) we (ex: come all from Belief1 Fundamental monic” social identity monic” - Hegemonic” social riving concepts from the theoretical debates, it represents a simplification of the of simplification a represents it debates, theoretical the from concepts riving
of thewordof
Figure
1
accent, etc) history, different we specific a have Russian,we(ex:we speak a have AdditionalBeliefs we (ex: come all from Moldova) FundamentalBelief 1 Theoretical Argument Argument Theoretical )
identity , we,
21
–
Schematic Representation relational web to adiverse Being exposed
“Alternative” social identity “Alternative” social etc) hard to finda University; job, by(ex:we the neglected are beliefs Additional are students) (ex: We Belief Fundamental 2,3…n
tity is tity
CEU eTD Collection present the researchtwo specific aims toobserve aspects: Moldova, on works existing the on and argument theoretical the on Relying non a of level the to identity social hegemonic their deconstruct will individuals identification for categories possible and interactions the diversifying by However, identification. for category wi it character primordial possible a has it because disappear, will FB1that mean not does situation particular This FB1. his/her weakenwill time their at which schemata, social different in engage and beliefs additional different on rely will individual the etc.) employee, sportsmen, (student, contexts social different from emerge beliefs would which fundamental new possible the of result a As interaction. of field his/her diversify FB the around built structure hegemonic bythe dominated be will group specific a with identification the because one “Hegemonic” a is identity social of type This stereotypes. perceptions, values, legends, other all and belief, group fundamental one on mainly rely will which individuals the T1, the At exists. that one only the reinforce to converge will beliefs additional the all beliefs, fundamental strong alternative no are there fundamental the reinforce (AD1) beliefs Additional come. they which from territory the be can that Romania in Moldovans of case the in factor, specific by 2. 1. - hegemonic, non
socia asocialidentity is How robust which lack asafundamental ethnicity different identitywould have they social inRomania. fromRomanians? identity haveDo Moldovans fromRomania adifferent social l identity. H political and social Different H1: 2 :
A diverse relational web will lead to the weakening of the “Hegemonic” the of weakening the to lead will web relational diverse A 1. Being exposed to a diverse relational web the individual will tend to tend will individual the web relational diverse a to exposed Being 1. - dominant identificat dominant
ion marker. additional group beliefs which are composed from from composed are which beliefs group additional 22
akrud f odvn wl la t a to lead will Moldovans of background
belief. In this case, when when case, this In belief. ll remain as a possible possible a as remain ll component
?
CEU eTD Collection research present model operationalization the of scheme methodological the simplify and explain to order In 3.2 of social identitydataand sources. qualitative byquantitative using observ will I research. that? do we can on rely how will so, I questions if these Answering And identity? constructed socially a deconstruct we can howe helpful very present is It the thesis. for central not is it one interesting an certainly is question first the Although empirical primary works,gatheredand secondaryRomania. fromdata data Moldova in t try will I Moldovans. for identity social possible and identification of issues fundamental the in closely inquires question first the respect this In Romania. with reunification and Romanians with similitudes of arguments the fo fight main the since point particular that at situation strange a was It moment. that at already front national supporting not were peoples and Moldova, in pan the 1994, in arguing already was King As project. a forcesidentity foundthem,specific ide different inwhich Moldovans trying topromote national of construction the with situation problematic the observed King 1994, in Already fin the addressing is question first The
Concept operationalization identity identity 22 A ies rltoa wb il ed o h weakening the to lead will web relational diverse A H2.2: of weakening the to lead will web relational diverse A H2.1: through through e if e
additional groupbeliefs groupfundamental beliefs
which will address explicitly the way I have interpreted the main the interpreted have I way the explicitly address will which personal relational web relational personal ver in introducing the second, main question of this research, this of question main second, the introducing in ver
ig o Cals ig o Moldova for King Charles of dings o answer this question both by relying on other other on relying by both question this answer o usinr ad interviews and questioners 23
can have any impact on the deconstruction the on impact any have can - Romanianism project was not fulfilled not was project Romanianism r independence was built on built was independence r
gathered during my my during gathered
f hegemonic of Kn 1994) (King
hegemonic
ntity
the .
CEU eTD Collection fundamental the of part is It themselves. attribute people which to category perceived beliefs: group Fundamental of those types ofbeli Both members. group the to characteristic are which skills, traditions, customs, occupations, otherpractices, words,in existence, groupthe of behavioralargument a as are perceived hand beliefs of type This exis group of reason etc.). fundamental the constitutes Moldova”, from come “We Bessarabians”, are (“We stated clearly very and identifiable easily usually is it that means which marker social clear a of role “light identification main the of consist and components: main two of consisting is defined was it as identity, part this in review, and measurements.connection So definitions a tomakebetween I like nevertheless would theory the during defined were concepts those of Both networking. mai The and (questioner tools measurement the linking askedinterviews) withquestions in support a be will also and concepts
you introduce to used Label Additional Group Beliefs. Beliefs. Group Additional
to variables/concepts two n heritage cultural background/ ofcommon rhetoric The GroupBeliefs Fundamental Figure efs comeefs together increating
2
Operationalization scheme for Social Identi schemeOperationalization Social for ersn l Represent
Fundamental beliefs, as it is argued throughout the literature the throughout argued is it as beliefs, Fundamental
differenc categorical of salience The
will be will h peet eerh eis upon relies research present the Social Identity Social es
- introduced in the next part intheintroduced next motives”. Fundamental gr Fundamental motives”.
bl ue t itoue you introduce to used abels 24
tence. Additional group beliefs on the other the on beliefs group Additional tence. group activities group in participation of degree The the social identitya person of
GroupBeliefs Additional
Fundamental Group Beliefs Group Fundamental . oup beliefs usually play a a play usually beliefs oup
group trust group In/Out
r sca identit social are
and and
ty
- r rltd o th to related are
.
Holidays Religious
y group
and and cial
e
CEU eTD Collection (25 7 on celebrated Christmas being Moldova celebrating of schedule Romanian the to according break winter their have they Romania to come Moldovans when and holidays, state official t because fact in is it but difference important It calendarMoldovans are (oldcelebrating Julian style). according a tothe maynot very seem and style) (new calendar Gregorian the to according holidays religious the all celebrating two the between difference important an is there nevertheless mostly, orthodox Christian are Romanians are and holidays Moldovans both Religious context, present activities. the group in important in participation of degree the and trust group category this that of Because background. with or labeling their with related directly not are which group char behavioral beliefs: group Additional stronger isthefundamental beliefcaseBasarabian (inour one). The “Romanian”. of expense the on reinforced and constructed be would “Bessarabian” being of label possible the research, present the for Thus, categories. existing between differences identity social their for unimportant be could category that but category, specific a in themselves label will persons that occur may It differences. categorical of salience the is beliefs group fundamental v last The distinctiveness. categorical a for argument an as clearly serve may background historical or cultural different existence; group the of argument main the of one as used is it because belief group fundamental with related background/cultural common of rhetoric The category/group. specific a to them links which marker social clear the is identify would they category because belief refore we can expect that the bigger is the difference between these two categories the the categories two these between difference the is bigger the that expect can we refore
is .
acteristics of a group. Those are expected to reflect some characteristics of a of characteristics some reflect to expected are Those group. a of acteristics operationalized through three different variables: Religious holid Religious variables: different three through operationalized W hv t rgr te osrcin f pcfc aeois n em of terms in categories specific of construction the regard to have e As it is argued, additional group beliefs reflect mainly the the mainly reflect beliefs group additional argued, is it As th
of Janu of ary. In this way the time of celebration of religious of celebration of time the way this In ary. ariable through ariable 25
e eiiu hldy ae lo rnltd in translated also are holidays religious he the present research will research present the
groups, Romanians are Romanians groups, heritage is also clearly also is heritage th
f eebr, in December), of ays, In/out ays,
measure -
CEU eTD Collection had operationali I which through scheme the part this in briefly present will I identity. social the of rigidity Person 2,Measurementappendix 1) tool t variables three the address Questions beliefs. group fundamental constitute to argued Questions and practicing through identity social consenting ofthe totheadditional salience beliefs. own their reinforce to trainings/etc.) festivals/ w people expect can we sense this In existences. of logic group the to bounded clear be to believed are which but existence group the to fundamental not are which activities the to refers beliefs group Additional activities. d the is beliefs group additional of part some is believe I of which because variable trustful third The score. become same the register group not will others and own group, the of your characteristics of people way charac that a in as understood behavior, is trustworthiness that say can we that on reflecting By group. different of members the to attributed trustworthiness the to mostly but those, of definition personal and categories the to not looks it respect, main one in different is it nevertheless belief, group fundamental the operationalized to used I which differences categorical of salience the with associated be can variable This trust. group in/out is indicator a as or “Moldovan” a secon as The celebrate “Romanian”). to (choosing belief group additional an represent non for (even holidays al relational web is the independent variable which I expect to have an impact on the the on impact an have to expect I which variable independent the is web relational al , , a 4 ad 8 and 4b 4a, 3, 1, zed social networking social concept.zed - religious persons as long as those are also official state holidays) can can holidays) state official also are those as long as persons religious d variable I select to operationalize the additional group belief belief group additional the operationalize to select I variable d hrough which hrough
rm h qetoe operation questioner the from .
ho participate in group activities (parties/ debates/ debates/ (parties/ activities group in participate ho
additional group beliefs group additional 26
9, 10,11 and 12 and 10,11 9, egree of participation in group group in participation of egree lz tre aibe which variables three alize
were eitc f individual of teristic operationa
on the other hand other the on lized
(see are
CEU eTD Collection matters personal implying trust, of level Hajdeja As interactions. those in invested trust of amount the and interactions specific of salience particu a characteristicto is type the of information of lot a us give can interactions particular of weight the type, network the and size network the with Together network. the of weight which variable last The how big network orsmall a shoul person‟s of expectance clear a no is There others. with it compare can we size network the for value mean the taking indicator; relative a as serve could questioner our from results the Thus, size. could we which with value absolute no is There are. respondents ofthe networks the big can tell us how which a numerical indicator is network The ofthe size respectthis interpret important to is with other two it together variables. it social person‟s a about information little us tell can network of type the itself picture.By complex the of part a asobserve importantto it is it two, other interpreted without w network kin a case my In group. social same the from people around constructed are networks individual if observe will I network of type the Discussing (kin/non Type of Type of network Igli ih il e opsd any rm esrbas Ti vral sol nt be not should variable This bessarabians. from mainly composed be will hich - č kin centered)
pointed out in her study, we can expect that interactions characterized by a high high a by characterized interactions that expect can we study, her in out pointed Figure
3 is
Operationalization schemeOperationalization Social for Networki
lar individual. By the weight the By individual. lar important to take in account measuring social networking is the the is networking social measuring account in take to important The size of the network Social Networking Social to d be.
be considered as stronger and more important for important more and stronger as considered be 27
the present paper will understand theunderstand will paper present the - etrd ewr wl rpeet a represent will network centered
have compared the network network the compared have of social networking which which networking social of The weight of the ng
net
network, and in in and network, work
CEU eTD Collection however, notaffectwill any way in the them, Combining interpret. to easier and clearer analysis the make to order in cases present important three that point this at remark all explore will questionnaires the web relational personal the of characteristic from 29 to 13 from Questions important qualitative information for theresearch. brin it because account in take to variable important an is network the of Weight identity. personal of characteristics other with related more are persons that with interaction p the In you. for important the that indicate may friends your of one with matters personal important discussing or person, specific a from money borrowing way, this matters personal or trust implying not are which those than person a
I will combine some of the variables constructed on the basis of the of basis the on constructed variables the of some combine will I resent case, I would like to observe if the weight of the network is network the of weight the if observe to like would I case, resent
quality
(see appendix 2, Measurement tool 1) tool Measurement 2, appendix (see 28 relational web relational
information gathered.information
, and also with the type of social social of type the with also and ,
(Iglič 2003, 19 2003, (Iglič . I have to to have I . - 23) . In . gs CEU eTD Collection reason second The trend. broader a from case a on research a as interpreted be should it mostly case; isolated an of study the as interpreted be not should Romania in w also Slovakia; or Serbia Ukraine, Romania, in Hungarians remark can we Here backgrounds. social or educational political, different the by constructed were which identities different in Moldovans include can we which in trend general The Europe. Eastern from cases similar of spectrum a broader in case the include to possibility the to related is them of First Romania. in Moldovans diverse Moldovans the of of deconstruction impact the observe like would I 4.1 interview analysis. de strategies, and hypothesis. questionnaires my data, test empirical to order with in work interviews, will I stage last the At context. current in will I that after issue, research attempts T sense. this in made were attempts few very and way quantitative a in identity measure to task hard a is It approach. methodological diverse and innovative an on relying also is work present the argument, theoretical the with Along e can observe the case of Russians in post in Russians of case the observe can e
Case Case selection ed it ;
questions. First of all I will look closely at others authors‟ findings on the same the on findings authors‟ others at closely look will I all of First questions. relies scriptives
n ifrn sucs f aa n dfeet prahs n re t answer to order in approaches different and data of sources different on
Chapter4. M –
Romania is characterized by the existing of similar ethnic groups with groups ethnic similar of existing the by characterized is Romania ‟
Why is MoldovaWhy Important? is analysis from secondary and primary data, regression data, primary and secondary from analysis ur it scnay aa n re t cek hs fnig i the in findings those check to order in data secondary into quiry
n oai. hr ae he mi raos o selecting for reasons main three are There Romania. in ethodologicalApproach - soviet republics. Therefore studying Moldovans Moldovans studying Therefore republics. soviet 29 P
resent research will apply diverse research research diverse apply will research resent he present paper represents one of those of one represents paper present he esnl eainl web relational personal
s is the lack of lack the is
and in and n identity on - depth CEU eTD Collection rand a have to complicated is it argument, main the with start To procedure. sampling the is work present the of points critique to predisposed most the of one Probably 4.2 and theconclusionsenough inorder weren‟t a totake close l werepresented details few as study long aspresent the on closelyvery reflect to preferrednot I respect In this conclusions. the mostly data, the of exploration little a with and methodology the about data few with findings, summarizing some just includes report the that remark to establish to research remark I thesis. my to linked directly is them of none started discussions some had study trajectori identity possible about discussing is Bucharest from Problems Ethnic of Studies for Center European by made study 20 a of of report a end nevertheless the At Romania. in Moldovans addressing researches quantitative no were there year last till that say can I Romania in Moldovans of case the to specifically Referring observation inmy study. gat the of quality the respects: two in least at research my of quality the improve can I process the of part a being and language the Knowing researcher. a as me researc for accessible also is it picture, the broader a from case interesting to related is Romania in Moldovans specifically under was Romania in Moldovans of specificcase the mobility, high by characterized are Moldovans although Romania, in Moldovans on research
Population, that I tried to contact institution in charge of the study and some of some andstudy the of chargein institution contact to Itried that
in order to ask to order in
connections with any of the persons responsible for the present study. Also I have study. Also present the for responsible persons anythe of with connections
(European Center for Studies of Ethnic Problems 2012) Problems Ethnic of Studies for Center (European
Sampling access to the data they have gathered, but unfortun but gathered, have they data the to access
and Measurement Toolsand hered data and the possibility of having partici having of possibility the and data hered 30 s o Mloas n oai. lhuh the Although Romania. in Moldovans for es
- researched ook at the research. ook at the . Moldovans. Romania in .
patclte. en an Being practicalities. h The third reasons of taking reasonsof third The
appeared. The study study The appeared. responsible for the the forresponsible ately I was unable unable was I ately om sampling for for sampling om
have to have patory patory
12
CEU eTD Collection ( fromBucharest Pupils of 12 cities biggest the are 11 those because cities two these choose I Bucharest. and Napoca Cluj Romania: in cities two in just interviews) and (questioners data gather will I Secondly, the embassy togive mecontact representati ofpossible ASEB (GIB, Romania in Moldovans represents which organizations through be will point second questioner, the spread to them from start to and IdifferentFirst“entry three wouldhave resu the and sampling the improve to try will I procedure random a have to order in samp data of sources accessible no are there know, we Romania in Moldovans of number approximate the for even because secondly and population entire no as long “snow a on rely will research present The their Romanian passport. manyare Moldovans 250,000 then more reports Romania Foundation Soros other to (according citizenship Romanian got who Moldovans of number inter the during Moldova the on living relatives had they that prove to able are they if entered Moldovans Moldovans all almost by obtain be can which citizenship, Romanian more of basis the on Romania much that it, presented also embassy the as nevertheless, was report wrote I Romania who Moldovans of numbers the know to order In population. unknown an http://www.soros.ro/ro/comunicate_d Group of Bessarabian Initiative from Cluj from Initiative Bessarabian of Group ling procedure. In order to ensure the best results possible for the “snow the for possible results best the ensure to order In procedure. ling ed
rud 600 fiily eitrd odvn i Rmna in Romania in Moldovans registered officially 16.000 around
te psil atraie s vial, is o al eas w cno ko the know cannot we because all of first available, is alternative possible other
a letter to the Moldovan embassy in Bucharest. The official response response official The Bucharest. in embassy Moldovan the to letter a www.ASEB.ro de facto de facto
-
war period (when it was Romania). In this sense there are a huge a are there sense this In Romania). was it (when period war
in Romania, since many of them could enteredin Romania,sincethemthecountry manycould with of )
etaliu.php?comunicat=187 - Napoca ( Napoca 11 ). - points”. I applywill questioners aig th Having - www.GIB.ro al smln poeue o te usinr as questioners the for procedure sampling ball” 31
s i nme i i hr t fn ot how out find to hard is it number big is ), Association of Bessarabian Students and and Students Bessarabian of Association ), ves ofMoldovan inRomania. diaspora 12
) and in the third instance I will ask will I instance third the in and )
lts of the sampling in two ways. two in sampling the of lts
territory of present Republic of of Republic present of territory to the people I thepeople to know 2012. The problem problem The 2012.
are residents in in residents are - ball” sampling ball” -
CEU eTD Collection a343a3f7e998f6f6d http://www.insse.ro/cms/rw/pages/index.en.do;jsessionid=27927116f3654fcb835a91a5fa35bf3d96a0bdb6e8 13 C for (100 170 is gathered have I questioners of number The variables. researched the of important most the address will that questions have will I questioners the within discussed already was it As prese the for data of source main The some of themain aspectsbrought light ina to meaningful questioners by way. in in students young and organizations such of leaders th have still they Romania, in year first their in that expect can we nevertheless a network, personal undeveloped of small, a with profile person the find would I that ensure not would that Certainly Romania. to came just i are who youngstudents, with interviews have to like would I part opposite the At questions. research the answering in me help may which and questioners the from come will which aspects specific interviews the during explore to interesting be th Romania, in community Moldovan the of sense some in representatives elites, as them consider can we that fact the with related is them selecting for reason The Bucharest. ha will I source, data importance secondary my be would which interviews, the to Referring for space no having thus cases, variation. then variables more having of problem the into run to around having and cities two just taking Also centers. university biggest the in them find to expect can we therefore students; are Romania in Moldovans most Problems, Ethnic of Studies for Center European Romania
e neves ih h laes f h bsaain raiain i Cluj in organizations bessarabian the of leaders the with interviews ve
n te igs uiest ce university biggest the and
luj - Napoca and 70 for Bucharest). The main task of the questioners is to grasp the grasp to is questioners the of task main The Bucharest). for 70 and Napoca 0dca9.e38QbxeSahyTbi0Oc310
100 questioners per each will allow me to have enough cases as not as cases enough have to me allow will each per questioners 100
nt research is the questioners I gathered during 2 month. month. 2 during gathered I questioners the is research nt nters i proa ntokn dvlpn. hs having Thus developing. networking personal eir
32 13 A i i age as i te td md by made study the in also argued is it As .
- depth interview can help me explore me help can interview depth n their first year of studies and and studies of year first their n
- aoa and Napoca us it would it us CEU eTD Collection 14 specific issues interviews respect, grasp identity qualitative a bringcan but result interviewee issues identification explore to like would I since exploratory partially least at be will interviews the discussion, guidethe start to questions basic some haveI will Although Complement personal deconstruction andof thehegemonic identity the networks between relationship about information quantitative important some give to and picture broad
Full translated questionnaire in Appendix 2, Measurement tool 1, Questionnaire. 1, tool Measurement 2, Appendix in questionnaire translated Full
all important elements which can characterize social identity of an individual. In this In individual. an of identity social characterize can which elements important all is a very complex complex very a
believe important to remark. to important believe r t te question the to ary and find somemoreand prob
will
e opeetr dt wih il lo m t g in go to me allow will which data complementary be
concept
part of the information. I information. the of part nai ad vn hog th through even and , r e
wl ue lo in also use will I lematic aspects ofsociallematic identity
Interviews will not allow me to generalize on the the on generalize to me allow not will Interviews 33
nterviews - e questioner questioner e depth semi ,
14 will be a useful tool useful a be will .
- it structured .
will
e ifcl to difficult be
- deep with with deep hc the which interview.
since
CEU eTD Collection republic independent an end the in and Union Soviet Romania, Great Empire, Tsarist of part consid a in influenced which history its yearsof 100 last the duringchanges political and territorial of series a through went Moldova between difference of idea Romanians and Moldovans. the promoted which discourses political remarked authors eve since studies those to attention some pay to important it believe I However process. construction identity explicitly discussed not have they process building national beg the at erupted which conflict ethnic the to respect with researched and studied mostly was Moldova 5.1 rooted according tothe respondents. als but H1, the supporting question the from 2012) (IPP f opinion public of Barometer the from data descriptive some bring will I that 2002) Moldova and Estonia of Kolsto‟s presenting by position this support will I analysis my of part H1 first this that In case. say researched can I way this In Romanians. as themselves see from different Moldo themselves time same the at but perceive similarities, important identify do They certainly Romanians. Moldovans that us shows analysis Data
Constructing Identity at the HighPolitical at Constructing Identity level
(Kolsto, National integration National (Kolsto, inning of 1990 on the left bank of the river Dniestr. Although studies discussed the discussed studies Although Dniestr. river the of bank left the on 1990 of inning ChapterAre5. Moldovansdifferent from Romanians?
which supports the main finding main the supports which nai r e s
and interviews and n xliigwyta ocre n hr h ifrne are differences the where and occurred that why explaining in o
and King and
and violent conflict in post in conflict violent and
I have applied. applied. have I ‟s erable way the identification of its citizens. Being a Being citizens. its of identification the way erable
(King 1994) (King 34 I tels pr Iwl ics as the also discuss will I part last the In .
The last part will be helpful no just in just no helpful be will part last The arguments and discussing them. discussing and arguments
- Soviet societies : the cases the : societies Soviet holds
o e re o the for true be to rom Moldova rom vans do not do vans n then the the then n
results
After After
CEU eTD Collection on look brief a Even itself. Moldova within themselves about held Moldovans perception top a as just affairs of state this view to by used were gain to order in Chisinau from forces issues political identity that fact the to pointing rightly are Kolstoe and King Both 5.2 Romanians and Moldovans. t promote to tried Chisinau from forces political 1994 in already However Moldovans. are who and go Moldova should where toward divided highly is spectrum political moment that present the say at Even can Moldova. in yet we over not sense is construction this In voters. attract to order in factor important an as campaigns electoral in used and debated intensively was identity national on vict clear a to leading Romania, with reunification than electorate a the for acceptable nation, more seemed Moldovan which scenario the building of scenario the explicitly supported and independence politi important 1994 of elections the for already then Chisinau, from forces political all almost by implicitly) or explicitly 1989 in If position. unionist act political 1994, in remarks already King as However, frommain argumentthemselves Moscow. indistancing ofthe Romanians as one and Moldovans between proximity the on much very relied Chisinau, from forces political post flag the of colors or alphabet language, arm the that p identification the on mark important an left
- Soviet societies : the cases of Estonia and Moldova 2 Moldova and Estonia of cases the : societies Soviet Moldovans fromMoldovaMoldovans ed conflict from Transnistria was fueled mostly by symbolic issues, such as as such issues, symbolic by mostly fueled was Transnistria from conflict ed ory of the Agrarian Party Agrarian the of ory
- 1990 the idea of unification was strongly enforced (be it it (be enforced strongly was unification of idea the 1990 cal actors (Agrarian Party, the President) opted for the the for opted President) the Party, (Agrarian actors cal –
A perspective onSelf (Kolsto, National integration and violent conflict in conflict violent and integration National (Kolsto, - on rcs. t s motn as t lo a the at look to also important is It process. down 35 rocess for its citizens. Kolsto citizens. its for rocess
r fo Ciia mvd ute fo pro from further moved Chisinau from ors electoral support. However, it would be wrong wrong be would it However, support. electoral
(King 1994) (King 002) . From that moment the question the moment that From . he idea of difference between between difference of idea he . Promoting liberation values, values, liberation Promoting . - Identification h btl fr identity for battle the
is rightly pointing pointing rightly is
- CEU eTD Collection 15 beshould theofficial of name thelanguage inMoldovanconstitut 2012 November from Opinion observe to order In the twoissues. doMoldovansalso lookwhat held to opinions about important is it context this In process. building nation Moldovan the support to seems Russia for desire possible a mean can there reunification; Romania with ties strong to Very attached such. strongly as also identification is country the of orientation external future about perception observ is it to this important of Because Moldovans. for marker identification powerful very a as presented is it and issue, symbolic a as more perceived is problem language The taught. are grammar Ro only schools in language, in stated is it as Moldovan, is Constitution Moldova of Republic in language official the moment different adopted was constitution the when 1994 since society; Moldovan in problems debated most the of one is Language geo to respect with expectation future and language official on opinion I Nevertheless prob identification or identity the on dataany statisticalfind to difficult quite Itis themselves different Romanians. from M from evidences statistical
http://www.presedinte.md/const.php?page=8100 15 Rgrls o ti saeet hr i n aaei rcgiin o this for recognition academic no is there statement this of Regardless . discuss here two important issues which issues important two here discuss
fore a losing of Moldovan identity, on the other hand, closer relations to relations closer hand, other the on identity, Moldovan of losing a fore this aspect of identification I relied on the data from Barometer of Public of Barometer from data the on relied I identification of aspect this wa Mloas hn aot hs rbe. n h ohr hand, other the On problem. this about think Moldovans what e
oldova will also support the argument that Moldovans perceive perceive Moldovans that argument the support also will oldova
ain agae Rmna ltrtr casc ad Romanian and classics literature Romanian language, manian
(IPP 2012) (IPP
ocs r agig o dfeet pin. t h present the At options. different for arguing are forces
. The question respondents were asked was “What was asked were respondents question The .
36
are strongly related to identification: to related strongly are ion in your ion in opinion?”
- political orientation. political lem as such. such. as lem
CEU eTD Collection c a not is it argued already I have As held. Moldovans terms geo in expectations future about opinion the is look to choose I variable second The Moldovans. be differentiate to order in marker social important an as Romania fr Moldovans young the by used is it chapter present the in further see will we As belief. fundamental for marker a as used be can it since variable important very a is case present official be to although language, Moldovan consider citizens Moldova‟s of majority that fact the disregard “well a of existence the supporting Cer line. same the on themselves byplacing this from benefit to try will actors political language, Moldovan clearlysupporting voters of part big a Having construct. language Moldovan supporting are actors political why cons the in written be should which language official the be to language Moldovan believe Moldovans of majority good a that us shows clearly data The
65.0%
Figure ti o tuh i shoso eonzdsiniial. agaei the in Language scientifically. recognized or schools in taught not is it
4
Moldovans‟ attitude towardMoldovans‟ official language O Based Barometer of from Public ondata pinion, Moldova 2012 pinion, any wud e aeu i agig ht h rsls are results the that arguing in careful be would I tainly - established” Moldovan identity. Nevertheless, we cannot cannot we Nevertheless, identity. Moldovan established” 22.7%
7.6% 37
2.0% 2.7% (IPP 2012)
answer to wantknow/Don’tDon't -2.0% Constitution the from article the Exclude 7.6% - Romanian breackets in Moldovan, 22.7% - Romanian 65% - Moldovan
lear, straight forward indicator of of indicator forward straight lear, titution. The results also tell us tell also results The titution. -
2.7%
we Rmnas and Romanians tween
- strategic strategic
om CEU eTD Collection presented th above from observation the at closely look will we If Union. they future the in that believe they Romania with unification any expecting Without Romanians. as themselves see not do Moldovans that idea the supporting in argument strong another R to then Russia to more even attached future or their related see Moldovans somehow Moreover, Romania. future to attached their see not do Moldovans moment present the at popular, expectation, possible a to especially opposed As Romania. to attached future their or themselves As attached. future their see they their regardto With per Moldovans union or country which us tell can it however identification, or identity specific a ceive as path. future possible
will be either a part of Moldovan state or of a regional organization, be it EU or Custom Custom or EU it be organization, regional a of or state Moldovan of part a either be will
Custom Union Russia-Belarus-… Union Custom mna n crany uh oe o odv a a idpnet tt. hs is This state. independent an as Moldova to more much certainly and omania in chapter 2 chapter in rm h bgig f 9 we te da f nfcto wt Rmna a still was Romania with unification of idea the when ‟90 of begging the from Don't know/Don't answer know/Don't Don't future expectations, Moldovans were asked to choose a location to which to location a choose to askedwere Moldovans expectations, future European Union European , we can certainly say that at the level of fun of level the at that say certainly can we , Based on data from Barometer of Public O ofPublic Barometer from Based data on Figure Romania Moldova Canada Russia USA Else
5
Moldovans‟ Future Expectation Moldovans‟ e a se rm h fgr 5 figure the from see can we Moldova 2012 0.1% 0.5% 0.6% 0.8% 4.2%
38 8.9%
(IPP 2012)
22.0% og te hoeia framework theoretical the rough 24.0%
pinion, pinion,
very few Moldovans see see Moldovans few very damental group beliefs group damental 39.0%
CEU eTD Collection the respondentsgive scoresfrom diffe not could are Moldovans whether was Romanians from on different reflect to respondents asked questions first the of One the group level, andspecifi to data level national from go to is purpose my results; the compare not will I reason this For descr use opinion. Public of Barometer the in will addressed those from different are which questionnaires, I reason this for that remark to have I Romania. from Moldovans for just case this in but themselves Moldovans‟ about the perception also part this in examine I therefore Romania in Moldovans for process presen the However, expectations). future languageand to beliefs As 5.3 with identification of least lines Moldovan state. at same or identity the Moldovan along distinct a going supporting are and realities constructing social and discourse political both, that R from them differentiate which values fundamental clear very from themselves have also Moldovans level, differentiate political high the to complementary see, can which we As Romanians. markers identification clear display Moldovans
e ol observed could we
and Moldovans think of themselves as different as themselves of think Moldovans and Moldovans fromRomania Moldovans
odvn from Moldovans (see c ally for Moldovans in Romania.ally for Moldovans in appendix 2, Measurement tool 1 tool Measurement 2, appendix –
A Perspectiv
Moldova Moldova 39 rent atall (1)rent tovery (10). different
iptives for two questions addressed in in addressed questions two for iptives hold
e e on Self from Romanians (at least with regard with least (at Romanians from
oe motn fundamental important some t paper researches the identification the researches paper t
, omanians. Thus we can say can we Thus omanians. question - Identification
3 ).
As one can see see can one As
group CEU eTD Collection understandab and clear very a as presented is it because value fundamental strong a is That Romanian. from way some in different as language the perceive also Romania from speaking have we Moldovans with speaking are we when but Romanian, speak can we specific dialect, dialect different a speaking are Romania Mo no is there that fact interviewe the Although beliefs. group additional and fundamental levels, this Exploring from Romanians ethnic abr as Romania in study to accepted were Moldovans though even that see to interesting still is it extremes, the excluding However Romanians. from different extr other the to compared as 1, score the gave one no Romanians, from different not are Moldovans that say that observe to interesting is It Romanians. themse perceive Moldovans that As we can see from the histogram and from the table, the mean is around 5, which 5, around is mean the table, the from and histogram the from see can we As oad, they in a different dialect” different a in 10 15 20 25 30 35
consider themselves 0 5 Figure 163 Mean:SD: 4.91; 2.38;
part with the interviews showed interviews the with part eme where we have 5 individuals who consider that Moldovans are very very are Moldovans that consider who individuals 5 have we where eme
1 0
6 .
Perceived difference between Moldovans andPerceived Romanians difference Moldovans between ldovan language, they all pointed out the fact that Moldovans from from Moldovans that fact the out pointed all they language, ldovan 2 8
29 (see appendix 2, Table 9) Table 2, appendix (see 3
different from Romanians. lves as different but not fundamentally different from from different fundamentally not but different as lves
Valid n: 31 4
, as one of the interviewee pointed out pointed interviewee the of one as , ,
10 5 for example for 40
that there are important differences at both at differences important are there that 32 6
, 13 . We can see clearly that Moldovans that clearlysee can We .
7 there are no individuals who would who individuals no are there
29 8
9 5
e
acknowledged the the acknowledged 10 6
“We have a have “We
tells us tells le
CEU eTD Collection Romanian society.within Romanians, and Moldovans of concepts abstract to regard with just not themselves position to asked were respondents the therefore group, of term the to explicitly refers it because account into take should we group distinct and united a are bessarabians that statement the with agree they do much how grade: rooted fundamentaland in both, well is Moldovans and Romanians between difference perceived that say can we all in All promise. the keeping of habit the education, like beliefs additional other by enforced also is May” 9 like holidays, Russian by influenced are holiday the even Russians, by influenced were behavior their on impact important an has language Russian influence Russian of of level the on beliefs, additional At Moldovans. to characteristic being dialect the and accent the difference, The second matter matter second The
as John is arguing is John as (see 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 163 Mean:SD: 5.16; 3.09; Valid n: appendix 2, Measurement tool 1 tool Measurement 2, appendix
1 6
present e of the most interesting findings from the interviews is the importance the is interviews the from findings interesting most the of e Al or f interviewed of four All . F 21 igure 2 .
W
ed e can see
7
15 u as t tik f odvn a a osbe ifrn group different possible a as Moldovans of think to also but . 3 in this part is related to other issue respondents were asked to asked were respondents issue other to related is part this in
Bessarabians
additional group beliefs.additional group 15 4 that
it isperceiv it 29 5 , - 41
questions United and group distinct
esn rmre that remarked persons 18 6
ed as a very important difference, which aed important very as 4a
15 7 ) . This is another important aspect important another is This .
“We are different because we we because different are “We 14 8
9 9 usa clue and culture Russian
10 21
th
of
CEU eTD Collection as official in the constitution. statelanguage exampl the see can herewe And Romanians. aspectfrom important some in different are Moldovans that idea the supported which rhetoric a rhetoric, building national used 1994, from already parties support, electoral gain to order In such. elect the on impact powerful very have to proved issues those Moreover, symbolicgreat hadwerepolitical issuesinChisinau and a processes. quite often value used in Moldova and Estonia of cases Kolstoe Both, gathered inRomania evidences empirical the on literature, the on Based such. asidentity Moldovan a identified we unless identityMoldovan of deconstruction the on inquiry the start cannot certainly we but research present the of question central the not is It 5.4 their in are “Romanians Icountry,to proveI prove anything, respect” don‟t hadthat have they to worth that fact the stressing by Romanians from Moldovans clearly it puts Iren As particularities. their with society, Romanian within group distinct a as bessarabians discuss persons interviewed four All interviews. the from responses the by also supported th from findings but The either. society, Romanians as them Romanian see not within do they groupcertainly distinct a as Bessarabians see not do respondents 10 value the for end the s high a with normal, almost is distribution the that see can we case previous the in As
“Moldovan‟s think of themselves as un as themselves of think “Moldovan‟s Do Moldovans HoldaIdentity Do Different Social Moldovans fr
(Kolsto, National integration and violent conflict in post in conflict violent and integration National (Kolsto,
we can question. answerpositively we tothis –
eydfeet Tema s gi aon , which 5, around again is mean The different. very 2002)
n King and
42 ited and ited
Kn 1994) (King from Moldova and on empirical evidenc empirical on and Moldova from helpful to each other”; each to helpful e of introducing Moldovan language Moldovan introducingof e ae run fr h fc that fact the for arguing are ,
om Romanians? - Soviet societies : the : societies Soviet oral campaigns as as campaigns oral e questioners are questioners e
. she is d is she
el us tells
i core in in core viding
that es es CEU eTD Collection ethnicity, in rooted not is find to expect I difference The interviews. and questioners from data the to 1990 of beginning the in process building national on struggles political the from should we statement that understanding For identity. social different a have do Romania from Moldovans that say can we presented evidences the With additional group mayfor aconstitute that a basis beliefs social identity. iden can we Romania, from Moldovans of identification self the even predisposition, social discourse, political account in Taking Romanians. from them differentiate that characteristics important R some or identify Moldova They different. from themselves it be Moldovans, that evidences see can We at the additionallevel. group beliefs also but level beliefs group fundamental the at differences important identified persons four to related were interviewed the by remarked differences main The experiences. background the to linked difference mostly are which important some identify do they time same the at colleagues, Romanian their from bessarabian there that young fact the acknowledge that Romania see can we So interviews. from material the by explained be can findings statistical The degree. some to different be to themselves believe Moldovans similar as them consider not do they Romanians, from different completely are Moldovans that arguing not are they Although sense. this in extreme so not is situation the that say can we Romania from Moldovans the For Romania. to M to attached more future their see Moldovans expectation, future Regarding exist. not does such as language the that fact the of regardless 2.1.), figure (see language state official as language Moldovan leave to necessity the sustain 65% language officia of issue the On Romanians. or Romania to attached so themselves see not do Moldovans level society the at moment, present the at even that see can we forward Moving the dialect and to the background educational variables. All variables. educational background the to and dialect the
are some important similitudes between them and them between similitudes important some are 43
ihr A w cn e fo te scores, the from see can we As either. iy motn fnaetl and fundamental important tify observe the process as a whole, a as process the observe oldova, EU or Russia, then Russia, or EU oldova,
mna d perceive do omania, l state l - CEU eTD Collection that and Moldovans Romania in dohave a social different identity. research present the for true hold H1 that fact the indicate arguments presented the All group. social different a of as Moldovans about impression same the hold Romanians and fundamental both gro additional has Romania in identity social “Moldovan” Romania. in studies their of beginning the at especially one, hegemonic a be to identity this believe I argument diff a held do Romania from Moldovans that indicates data The identity. social distinct a with us they presents identified features different the and give, they scores the even however, difference, perceived understan completely is it therefore up beliefs features. Moreover, all of the interviewed persons remarked that that remarked persons interviewed the of all Moreover, features. beliefs up rn sca iett ad eaig ht lo ih h theoretical the with also that relating and identity social erent al ta Mloas o o soe aiu o the on maximum score not do Moldovans that dable 44
CEU eTD Collection issue. particular respecta with to identified of Romanians number the by divided Bessarabians 16 variablesI excludedand where one include will them. to due excluded score be missing to had cases many too analysis multivariate the into those included have would I If girlfriend/wife. have or sport played respondents the of all not because made will I series first the F regression. of series different two have to have will I analysis my in them of all on rely will I and observe to important are variables the all Although Romanian). matter, Doesn‟t Roommates borrowing Girlfriend/Wife, Bessarabians/Romanins, Bessarabians/Romanians, activities sport Bessarabians/Romanians, matters Bessarabians/Romanians T variable. dependent web relational Personal each variablesseparatelyaggregatethefindings ofthese and to in diverse of impact the discuss I beliefs, group additional and fundamental identity. social h will hegemonic identity. social this is robust how on closely look I Romania impor some observing after and Romania in Moldovans for identification of issue the carefully considering After
The usage of Bessarabians/Romanians Bessarabians/Romanians of The usage Chapter6.Does Diverse ave. I ave.
“Moldovan” social identity to be socialto be identity“Moldovan” t seems that seems t . hrfr I Therefore s. Since social identity is composed from two theoretically different variables, variables, different theoretically two from composed is identity social Since exclude the exclude e an concept main he at etrs f sca iett dslyd y h Mloas in Moldovans the by displayed identity social a of features tant
is the independent concept through concept independent the is 16 persons with a diverse network diverse a with persons
diy neatos esrbasRmnas iprat personal important Bessarabians/Romanians, interactions daily ,
eie t hv to eis f ersin, n wt those with one regressions, of series two have to decided
sport and wife/girlfriend variables. That decision had to be be to had decision That variables. wife/girlfriend and sport represents the quantitative proportion between the number of number the between proportion quantitative the represents SocialIdentity? Relational Web
was influenced 45 operatio
money from someone (1 someone from money
nalized
by
will
the type of type the
Influence Moldovan’s
which
rely less on their “Moldovan” their on less rely hog 7 aibe: Friends variables: 7 through I the last part ofthe lastanalysis. part eiv the believe explain relational webrelational re s
lational web lational variation in variation ainy r the or saliency - Moldovan, 2 Moldovan,
a person a person rom
the on -
CEU eTD Collection five have to choose I why reason The logistic. one and regressions linear 4 have will I and 0 t of none observe can one As there are noc concept same the measuring are variables five all although that observe to important is It beliefs: fundamental with connected issues 5 address questions The beliefs. group fundamental of I beliefs fundamental the For the there if personsany make differencegroups with r between the identify to is function main its network, the of of weight the of proportion measurement a the reflect and continuous are five categ are two next the Moldovans/Romanians; first the variables 7 the all From Difference betwe Difference United and distinct distinct and United Promotion of own own of Promotion
.4 is a good score I believe it will make more sense to research the five variable separately separately variable five the research to sense more make will it believe I score good a is .4 Romanians and and Romanians Label usage Label Moldovans 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. culture
group
Necessity people tointeract with from region thesame The necessity touse (Moldovan) thelabel Perceivedgroup ofthe and unity distinctiveness Necessitygroup characteristic topromote cul Perceived between difference Romanians and Moldovans
orrelations higher 0.4betweenorrelations them. than
Table en Promotion of own own of Promotion 1
Correlation between fundamental group betweenCorrelation fundamentalvariables beliefs culture 0.15* p
-
„***‟ 0.001 | „**‟ 0.01 | „*‟ 0.05 | `.` 0.1 | | `.`| „*‟ 0.1 0.05 | „**‟ 0.01 „***‟ 0.001 he correlations are higher than 0.4, although for social sciences sciences social for although 0.4, than higher are correlations he const
ructed 5 variables 5 ructed United and distinct distinct and United 0.38** 0.24** group 46 orical. “Borrowing money” variable represents variable money” “Borrowing orical.
ture , each of them addressing a specific part part specific a addressing them of each ,
egards personalnetwork. toits
Label usage Label
- - 0.14*
0.04 0.07
Interacting with with Interacting people from the fromthe people
same region same 0.35** 0.36** 0.29** - 0.10
CEU eTD Collection Ihypothesis complement and check to order In beliefs. group additional that expect I diverse argument, a theoretical to belonging the throughout and H2 hypothesis the in stated As a regressionfactor. onthis running and them of out factor a constructing of instead variables five the of each for models which issues, different address the of all conceptually, factor, same the measuring are variables the web divers values fundamental of part which on observe to able be will I separately more us dif ferent analyses as opposed to construct a factor from all five is that I believe it will bring will it believe I that is five all from factor a construct to opposed as analyses ferent
6.3 has a stronger impact. stronger a has is
fundamental group beliefs? fundamental diverse Does 6.3.1
motn t epoe eaaey Bcue of Because separately. explore to important information
Persona
f e il bev ec o te sprtl. y nlzn them analyzing By separately. them of each observe will we if relational web relational eainl web relational l relational web
Another important reason is related with the fact that even though though even that fact the with related is reason important Another ed
statistical findings with qualita statistical with findings
to
influence of the deconstruction and fundamentaland group have
47 ht I that
sros mat n oh fnaetl and fundamental both, on impact serious a ra a eis f regression of series a n h sae raos r I reasons stated the tive data the from interviews.
a s regression n
e o et the test to relational
CEU eTD Collection 18 5 Tablesand 1, 4 appendix 17 d theory. on based expect would we as beliefs fundamental on effect opposite completely Romanians. and Moldovans between difference bet relationship the analyzes model first The significant interpret. to statistically be to proved models five of out two just see can we As included. being variables re personal p n: 167 money Borr Moldovans Romanian/ Roommates Moldovans Romanian/ matters personal Important Romanians Moldovans/ Friends Romanians Moldovans/ interactions Daily
iy neato vral i cluae by calculated is variable interaction aily -
p be can table from present the significant statistically models about proved Detailed information The first set of regressions represented in the table above describes the relationship between relationship describesabovethe table regressions the representedof in set firstThe value: 0.0114 Table -
owing owing „***‟| 0.001 „**‟
; Adjusted Rsquared:; Adjusted 0.074; 2
. Relationshipbetween and RelationalWeb Personal Fundamental Group Beliefs ainl web lational odvn and Moldovan between difference Perceived Romanians
0.01 | | 0.05 „*‟ 0.01 `.` 0.1 ( Without Relationship and Relationship VariablesWithout Sport Included) - - 0.32* 1.14** 0.36*
X X
18
and fundamental group beliefs without relationship and sport sport and relationship without beliefs group fundamental and
culture characteristic group to promote Necessity
X X X X X
iiig h nme o Mloas individuals Moldovans of number the dividing ween personal r personal ween 48
We can observe that daily interactions have a have interactions daily that observecan We thegroup of distinctiveness unity and Perceived p n: 163 X X X X X
-
value: 0.001 elational web and web elational ; Adjusted Rsquared:; Adjusted 0.10; usage Label
X X X X X
17
region same with t from people to interact Necessity the p the - found in the the in found 1.53*** erceived erceived X X X X
The
he he CEU eTD Collection of scale the on 1.14 of decrease a to lead will 2 to 1 from change A expectation. theoretical my confirms relationship this from score the variable, second the for as same The matter). and Romanians between difference perceived Moldovans on impact important an have to also proved Romanian a or Moldovan a from money borrow to predisposition to likelihood The to believemo Moldovans as tend will Romanians less and friends Moldovan more have who People beliefs. fundamental that Romanians from about different being as Moldovans perception the also then higher is friends Moldovan of proportion the if conclude, can we as So difference. perceived of scale the on 0.36 of increase an to lead will variable A “others”. the and group “own” the between difference perceived the decrease will network social diverse a that expectations theoretical confirms network. personal the in friends Moldovan case, first the in as same The Moldovans and Romanians between a difference perceived also on impact have significant statistically to seems individual an of network personal the in friends of proportion The with Romanians.similar more be to Moldovans believe will they basis daily a on Moldovans other with more interact for argues theory the b difference individual the of network personal A h Thus, basis. daily a on interact they Romanians of number the by basis daily a on interact ge i the is igher ccording to the model, model, the to ccording
the proportion of friends in the personal network matters for th for matters network personal the in friends of proportion the . This variable is a dummy one, having two categori two having one, dummy a is variable This . etween Moldovans and Romanians. and Moldovans etween
cr, the score,
the opposite relationship. According to this finding if Moldovans will will Moldovans if finding this to According relationship. opposite the
more Moldovans are in the individual‟s daily interaction network. network. interaction daily individual‟s the in are Moldovans more I trywill thepresent chapter. toexplain this end result atof the n nrae n h pooto o Moldovans/Romanians of proportion the in increase an re different from Romanians. a
higher value for this variable will mean a hi a mean will variable this for value higher
il ed o dces b 03 pit o perceived of points 0.32 by decrease a to lead will Contrary to the pervious finding, the present one present the finding, pervious the to Contrary 49 is higher. is
This finding comes totally unexpected since unexpected totally comes finding This
From this finding we can conclude can we finding this From
i n ces o oe on fr this for point one of ncrease es (1 es e construction of a part of part a of construction e - Moldovan; 2 Moldovan; gher number of of number gher -
Doesn‟t
n the in
the . CEU eTD Collection by brought results the certainly but astonishing something not certainly is 10% of variation A (R variable dependent the in variation 10% explains it that see can we model (p chance by occurred not did model model The have any onthe present variable. impact a constructing had I belief group fundamental identity. social the of foundation the constitute and together people bring can which marker identification strong a as used be can region same the from characteristi behavioral to attached not is which label strong very belief; fundamental the of part important an be can identification territorial literature, and region same the from people with model significant statistically second The thesamnot in is who someone from money borrow to person a of readiness the weights it because aspects nevertheles measuringproportions, the not is it sincenetwork the for significance quantitative no has moneys, Borrowing friends. the mapping and friendship of definition the to tied is which aspect qualitative a has it time same the at but network, the more reflect variables money o borrowingmeasure qualitative a is friends of number the Certainly network. the of aspects qualitative and friendship hand, other the On network. u tell one first the significant, statistically are that variables three of out that remark to important is It Romanians. and Moldovans between differences fewer see to likely more be will she or he than money, a if words, other In differences. perceived js aot o bg h proa ntok s wtot ocig n egt f the of weight on touching without is, network personal the big how about just s
s ttsial significant statistically is e by predetermined thekinship. model
and
<0.01). As regarding substantial sig substantial regarding As <0.01).
tells us about the r the about us tells esnl eainl web relational personal e a b 9% eti ta te eut fo the from results the that certain 99% be can we person have no preference from whom to borrow borrow to whom from preference no have person
50
model in order to observe if networking will networking if observe to order in model
elationship between interac between elationship Being an important part of the the of part important an Being s it has important qualitative important has it s cs. Mainly the provenience provenience the Mainly cs. .
As argued through the the through argued As - nificance of the the of nificance squared: 0.10). 0.10). squared: it is a a is it tions tions f CEU eTD Collection significant. ta the from observe can we As w model the in included were which cases of number the thus decreased, sample my variable this including w run have I regressions of series other The analysis seems has it group onfundamental noeffect thatsport/teammates beliefs. quantitative for least at thus significant, statistically was models five the of none just that b group fundamental in variations explain can which variable network important an as teammates and sport include to important believe I place first the In 6.3.2 the of characteristics networks inorder tounderstandfundamentalgroup are quite important beliefs. qualitative that fact the on reflect to us allows which network, the fr judging they. as region same the from people with interact to important it believe to inclined less be will they money borrow to whom from indifferent interacting of importance the on point 1.53 of decrease a to lead will variable this in 2 value to 1 value from change that see can we case this For power. explanatory significant statistically a holds money discussing. worth model the
sport variables Personal relational web om network analysis perspective; borrowing money is a qualitative characteristic of of characteristic qualitative a is money borrowing perspective; analysis network om
as
61. Therefore the model ran for the persons who have a girlfriend or a wife. a or girlfriend a have who persons the for ran model Thereforethe 61.
included
with people from the same region. In other words, if persons are persons if words, other In region. same the from people with It seems that for terri for that seems It ble below three out of five models proved to be statistically statistically be to proved models five of out three below ble
and fundamental group beliefs with relationship and fundamental relationship beliefs and and with group 51
as including the relationship variable. By By variable. relationship the including as torial identification variable, just borrowing just variable, identification torial gi I ol lk t pit u that out point to like would I Again eliefs. Nevertheless it proved it Nevertheless eliefs.
a
CEU eTD Collection 20 8 and Tables 7 1, 6, appendix 19 the personMoldovans willand betoseeless united group. distinct M a interactions daily more cases, previous in As variable. interaction daily the by particularly variables, networking the by influenced is group the of distinctiveness and unity perceived that seems It model. significant regressi of set present the for However, models. previous in as variables networking same the by influenced are beliefs group fundamental that see can We picture. the radically change not did model the in variable relationship the Including Relationship money Borrowing Moldovans Romanian/ Roommates Moldovans Romanian/ matters personal Important Romanians Moldovans/ Friends Romanians Moldovans/ interactions Daily
p the in found be can table from present the significant statistically models about proved Detailed information R Adjusted n=6 Table p -
- „***‟0.001 value: 0.0 value: 1
;
3
. Relationshipbetween and RelationalWeb Personal Fundamental Group Beliefs
- squared: 0.149 squared: 13
|„**‟
Romanians and Moldovan between differenc Perceived - 0.01 | | 0.01 0.05 „*‟ `.` 0.1 0.14*** - 1.98** 0.13 ( With X X X
e
20
Relationship andSportIncluded) Variables
characteristic characteristic group to promote Necessity culture oldovan will have with other Moldovans more predisposed predisposed more Moldovans other with have will oldovan
X X X X X X R Adjusted n=60;
p
- value: 0.080 value:
52
- of the group the of distinctiveness and unity Perceived squared: 0.082 0.082 squared:
- 0.15*** X X X X X
ons we have another statistically statistically another have we ons
Label usageLabel
X X X X X X 19
p R Adjusted n=59
- value: 0.02489 value:
the same same region from the people with to interact Necessity - squared: 0.1383 0.1383 squared: - 2.03*** 0.13**
X X X X
CEU eTD Collection studies. in go to topic interesting very a be can it however ideas, this support to data no have I since speculations just are those all in All body. unitary group the of image the deconstructing of role, opposite the playing just are there being daily thereforeto becloser, the interactions their expectationsto bedeceivedofMoldovans in in spent period a After etc.). together,working room, same the in (staying Moldovans other around dailyinteractions their construct to trying are they that of Because desires. and interests main the reflect to and exp Moldovans Romania, in the stay their of beginning at Possible fulfilled. not are Moldovans with interactions from expectations that fact the with related be can explanation Another relationship. assumed and weighted a anyhow interac as an room willcount a person in In words, with other living choosing. without interactions be can that and interact, you group a from persons many how a quantitative a just measuring is the interactions daily in of number rooted The variable. be the of can character explication main the however finding; present the explain to hard wi more interact O Romanians. from different as Moldovans see to be will person this likely less have, will person a friends proportion the is variable beliefs group fundamental in variation their the to explains attached which variable less Another be beliefs. group will fundamental from money borrow to whom to respect with difference borr to readiness the is it beliefs group fundamental on impact have to seems that factor important one that say can we Summarizing spect of the of spect e f h uepce fnig ws eae wt diy neatos pros h tn to tend who persons interactions, daily with related was findings unexpected the of ne
relational web relational th Moldovans, will believe them to be less different from Romanians. It is It Romanians. from different less be to them believe will Moldovans, th
Romania and diversifying their diversifying and Romania , the number of interactions is therefore a simple representation of representation simple thereforea is interactions of number the ,
w oe. t em ta pros h mk no make who persons that seems It money. ow f oainMloa fins Mr Romanian More friends. Romanian/Moldovan of 53
ect other Moldovans to be closer to them to closer be to Moldovans other ect - et wt sm psil follow possible some with depth relational web relational tion but will not represent represent not butwill tion
they come to the point point the to come they as a a as - up up CEU eTD Collection interviews, four on relying just generalization for possibility no is there Certainly interviews. data quantitative between relationship no is There discuss. to model significant statistically no found I regressions the all running After sport variable one and included them of each and for relationship without one regression, of sets two Ihad cases previous the in As separately. regression ran I issues different completely address and Sinc thematically others. the to compared as Moldovans of trustfulness the measures third the and tradition religious the to attachment the activities, second group the in involvement of matter the addresses them of One questionnaires. through beliefs group additional measure I research my For expectation. this sustain to evidence no present Romania for gathered I which data statistical beliefs, group exp would we though Even beliefs. group fundamental enforce or influence that arguments behavioral Additional 6.4 beliefs. also weaken social hegemonic identityis constructed the fundamental whichfrom those or the By fundamentalgroup weakening beliefs. ofsome so,diverse doing Relyingwe can onthefindings thatdiverse say
additional groupbeliefs?additional diverse Does ect people which engage in a diverse relational web to change also their additional their also change to web relational diverse a in engage which people ect
group beliefs are an important component of the social identity. They constitute They identity. social the of component important an are beliefs group gathered. However I wil IHowever gathered.
personalrelatio personal relational web and and web relational personal with thoseincluded.
l
nal nal web address in a detailed way this aspect relying on the the on relying aspect this way detailed a in address 54 relationa
e all three questions are different even even different are questions three all e
influencedeconstruction the of
additional group beliefs, at least for the for least at beliefs, group additional l web
three different questions in the in questions different three will lead to thedeconstruction leadwill to relational web will will CEU eTD Collection from orthemselves. outside from even interviewed Russians the from 9 like holidays, the even Russians, by influenced were we because from just come not does Russians with d Laitin‟s in that see can we identity, members‟ group as important as is identity group the about perception other‟s because remark important an is Moldova in back tanks with traveling are “you say: they Russians, Moldov about perception Romanian‟s characterized Russians” are [Moldovans] “You social identity. a serve measure can to interviews reason this difficulty For questioners. through the identity socially with a of aspects mostly behavioral related is it that believe I possible are scenarios of lack the with related be can it or questioner, the from questions the with related be can it relation, of lack this of and beliefs group additional between group and fundamental beliefs some between relationship find to situation, interesting an quite is It statistical data level. relatio no was there why understanding in us help can which aspects some discuss to important is it but s a good source in finding the most important aspects of additional group beliefs of a of beliefs group additional of aspects important most the finding in source good a s
nship identified between identified nship . As we can see the “Russianess” is an important aspect attributed to Moldovans to attributed aspect important an is “Russianess” the see can we As . personal relational web relational personal
”
apni2 table (appendix2, n itrcin ewe te w st o vrals Atog both Although variables. of sets two the between interaction any personal relational web relational personal , and not to find a find to not and ,
personal relational web relational personal –
9 ) ht a the was that th , h otie Jh rmrs that: remarks John outside, the 55 is perception was confirmed also by all other other all by also confirmed was perception is
n. s o pt i “ it puts Bob As ans. ny statistically significant relationship significant statistically ny efinition. However the identification the However efinition. ttmn oe f h interviewee the of one statement
and additional group believe at the at believe group additional and . There can be different causes different be can There . ”” th
(appendix 2, table 2, (appendix
of May are borrowed borrowed are May of ” they e r different are We
think we are are we think
9 ) , it it ,
CEU eTD Collection a of assessment direct a with persons the Presenting is. it silent how observe to also but a not gro additional was specific a identify just It to not important answer. is it since affirmative outcome desirable direct a to lead would promising of culture the about my In those responsibility. probably most this but trust, to related is questions through issue Moldovans this addressed I questionnaires to attached and identified characteristics th is here that like “ Moldovans: to important promise. the of respecting culture the with related are light to brought interviews the aspects of type second The and beliefs group additional personal web relational between relationship the measure to hard is it respect this I Moldovans. and Romanian between difference some are there if opinion own their present merely but that, do to asked not were they however interviews the in Russians, as themselves a measurable hard not” will Romanians and you, help always will Russians 10 matt a also is which them, to apply being “ way: some expectation in violent behavioral some with linked is it time same the at group, the of sense not is it since belief group fundamental as considered be cannot It belief. group additional important an picturing certainly is classification This Russians. to closer classified them have to attributes, cultural similar have and Romanians, as o think we when however interesting is It )
r lsr o esnl olve i te tes ” others: the in worldview personal to closer or ee nesod n dfeet a. n h ohr ad drsig drc question direct a addressing hand other the On way. different a in understood were –
rsosblt tkn o te rmss i ses ht n o te behavior the of one that seems it promises, the for taken responsibility e to be res be to spect because explicitly Moldovans have little or no incentive to identify to incentive no or little have Moldovans explicitly because spect ponsible for your words” words” your for ponsible Moldovans respect their word because they fear the violence you can you violence the fear they because word their respect Moldovans
through statistical data. h poie clue a on ut tag u i em t be to seems it but strange quite sound may culture “promise” The They [Romanians] are not respecting their word; we were raised raised were we word; their respecting not are [Romanians] They er of education and of our past” our of and education of er f the fact that Moldovans speak Moldovans that fact the f 56 –
John
strictly characteristic or determines the determines or characteristic strictly usas r bte ta Romanians, than better are Russians (appendix 2, table 2, (appendix –
Bob
(appendix 2, table 2, (appendix
–
Dan
9
the sam the ( ) appendix 2, table 2, appendix .
The distinction distinction The e language e
9 up belief belief up ) .
It is a a is It n
CEU eTD Collection web hyp the thus beliefs, networkin diverse between relationship any show not do gathered have I data the that acknowledge to have I study present the for however identity, of subject the on researches further for basis good a be can interviews the from Findings group. a for found be can which beliefs group additional about knowledge our enrich still we those; generalize beingtowithoutableinterviews, the from findings Ithe eveninteresting Neverthelessbelieve operati to hard in the within come usually those and find to harder are beliefs group additional presented, already have I as relationship, this of lack complete a st my in found not is it since beliefs group between relationship any invent not will I Certainly believe others tothem. toattach mostly table 2, (appendix past our of and education of matter a also is which them, to apply can you violence respo to attached somehow fighting Moldovans o also Iren respect this In “tough”. t fact the manner proudly a in state they as but themselves people, violent picturing not are they Certainly Romania. in Moldovans of tha characteristic observe also we interviews the From relia a without assessment ofsalience. its responses affirmative brought would belief group additional specific
does influence through not hegemonic identityadditional groupbeliefs. deconstruction
displays a behavioral characteristic which Moldovans attached to themselves or they they or themselves to attached Moldovans which characteristic behavioral a displays ”
–
“People have a pre a have “People Iren nlz ti cnet teeoe h rsls a lc sm precision. some lack may results the therefore concept, this onalize apni 2 tbe 10) table 2, (appendix
10 othesis H2. othesis ) .
This characteristic also can be attached to additional group beliefs, it it beliefs, group additional to attached be can also characteristic This
sblt “ nsibility
- 2 conception about Bessarabian, they are drinking, they are they drinking, are they Bessarabian, about conception
is
false sre ta pol hv a ifrn iae regarding image different a have people that bserves odvn rset hi wr bcue hy er the fear they because word their respect Moldovans .
, and we can state that diverse diverse that state can we and , atistical data. However I would be also skeptical to skeptical also be would I However data. atistical t s lo bevbe ht ilne s considered is violence that observable also is It 57 t violence is considered another behavioral behavioral another considered is violence t
- deep interviews, because of that it was was it that of because interviews, deep personal relational web relational personal a Rmnas osdr them consider Romanians hat g and additional group additional and g personal relational relational personal
and additional and ” –
Dan ble
CEU eTD Collection beliefs through my interviews through operationalization tobring questionnairesfailed the add main the identified I though even and questioners, through beliefs group additional measure to task difficult a is It tool. measurement with problems the of because occurred any finding in failed I However, relations beliefs. group fundamental in variation explaining in important be can money borrow to readiness or interaction daily of proportion friends, of through clear is It beliefs. Diverse questions. this to web relational answer “No” or “Yes” forward straight no is there diverse can So, hip between diverse diverse between hip
influences the deconstruction, or the weakening of some of fundamental group fundamental of some of weakening the or deconstruction, the influences personal relational web relational personal
the analysis of the empirical data that such variables as proportion as variables such that data empirical the of analysis the esnl eainl web relational personal inf luence the identity deconstruction? Unfortunately deconstruction? identity the luence 58
and additional group beliefs. That That beliefs. group additional and personal itional
CEU eTD Collection share Moldovans and Romanians both since case present the in understandable completely o differences example for as big as not are identified they differences the Certainly, language. Russian of knowledge or culture, Russian to attachment violence, of use as such aspects behavioral regarding different the At affiliation. territorial the and dialect fund the beliefs At levels. group additional and fundamental both: at different are Moldovans that say can I the in Working Romanians. from ways important some in different are Moldovans that clearly quite show Romania and Moldova from data empirical and the literature questions, research first this On speculations. any from myself securing and findings e on relying difference important of discuss to me allowed Romanians from different question the Addressing assumption. this with inquiry the start not differentbe to IMoldovans take that impression anhave can researchone present the of beginning the From of byidentities individuals theirchanging interactionpatterns. interesti an quite is it However, beliefs. group additional the of none and beliefs group fundamental diverse that say can we The Romanians. from identity social different a display do Moldovans shows, analysis answer the As can questions. we both positively evidences empirical the to According research. present the of questions diverse through deconstructed be identity social constructed socially this can so, if And Romanians? from different Moldovans Are ng finding because we can say that to a particular degree we can modify social social modify can we degree particular a to that say can we because finding ng from Romanian as a proved fact. Although I expect this situation to occur Ioccurdid to situation this Iexpect Although fact.proved a as Romanian from amental group beliefs level th level beliefs group amental esnl eainl web relational personal e a ietf bten soin ad usas Ta fc is fact That Russians. and Estonians between identify can ne
answer to the second question is not so straight forward since since forward straight so not is question second the to answer Conclusions
personal relational web relational personal 59 same time, Moldovans consider themselves themselves consider Moldovans time, same
e
can influence just some characteristics of of characteristics some just influence can differences
are related first of all with the with all of first related are
? These are the two central two the are These ? of whether of theoretical framework theoretical
Moldovans are Moldovans mpirical CEU eTD Collection relation interesting finding succeeded I Although true. partially is H2 identity, social influence networking diverse does question, research second regarding As identity. social different a have Moldovans background, cultural and social specific the of on Relying operationalize to task questionnaires. challenging a was it since between relationship the diverse that, in of Because by questionnaires. surprised the within were not differences and interviews those that was problem The Moldovans. and id individuals observed, we As situation. real the well very reflect not might result the that out point to like would I results, possible some on speculate and statement this with further go cannot I Although n diverse that evidence statistical no found relation. this from findings the way meaningful a in interpret to hard is it therefore web; relational personal the of details qualitative important lack to variable present address already was it as However, expectation. theoretical against were which results presented showed variable interactions daily where case the have we Certainly web relational diverse where situation interesting very a with us present findings empirical main diverse particularly:can th forward, Moving social identitydistinct characterize a which social specific group. a as Romania in identity social “Moldovan” discussing for arguments clear very us presented dif ethnic clear no is there words other In characteristics. religious or culture, language, same the mostly esnl relat personal
empirical findings from the present study present the from findings empirical a hneMloas ecpinaot hmevs n bu Romanians. about and themselves about perception Moldovans‟ change can
eec bten h to rus Al n l te nwr o h frt question first the to answer the all in All groups. two the between ference e present researched inquired into the deconstruction of social identities, identities, social of deconstruction the into inquired researched present e oa web ional entified some important behavioral differences between Romanians Romanians between differences behavioral important some entified personal relational web relational personal
and additional group beliefs was just partially uncovered uncovered partially just was beliefs group additional and 60 tokn ifune adtoa gop beliefs. group additional influences etworking
deconstruct “Moldovan” social identity? The The identity? “Moldovan”social deconstruct we can say that that say can we
additional group beliefs through through beliefs group additional
hp between ship H1 held true. Becau true. held H1
On the other hand I hand other the On ed, I believe the the believe I ed, personal personal per - depth depth sonal sonal se se
CEU eTD Collection dive in people interconnect to succeed will we if context, bigger a to brought be can paper the of argument whole The proved tobeawhichcan infurther start capitalized valuable be researches. big a on research valuable a have to order in tools quantitative and qualitative I combined myresearch in identity, way empirical an in research or study to task difficult a is It research. empirical Another identity. hegemonic lin to possibility the the is research present the of novelty important of weakening the after identities those of structuring hierarchical the on also look to or identities, multiple the of construction possible the into shoul certainly and could, we identity hegemonic the of deconstruction the on research the with along developments, further for allows argument theoretical the Also individuals. we society personal the to attention specific paying and variable ethnic the disregarding identities social into research 2000) Cooper ( identity to approaches different fr theoretical the in all of first relies research the of novelty The field. study identity the to approach new a presents results the with along research present The of level the hegemonic social identity. the at least at that out divers believes, found group fundamental we further, Going identity. social a of important as factors beliefs group additional and fundamental of characteristics clear identified Firs argument. theoretical the supporting are between webrelational - N cases sample. Certainly sample. cases N personal relational web relational personal
ant disregard cannot eainl web relational
, and fundamental group beliefs, I failed in finding the same kind of relationshipof kind same findingthe in Ifailed groupbeliefs, fundamental and Eisn 1968) (Erikson . In the present context of evolving interconnectedness of the the of interconnectedness evolving of context present the In . rse
esnl eainl web relational personal ) relational
cntutd tertcl onain hc alw fr a for allows which foundation theoretical a constructed I and additional group beliefs. All in all empirical evidences empirical all in All beliefs. group additional and
(Bar
e it had its own problems, however judging by the results it it results the by judging however problems, own its had it personal relational web relational personal - Tal and Danies 1998) Danies and Tal ewrs n boe kin broke and networks 61 o al oh usinars n interviews and questionnaires both all of t
and its impact on social identity of of identity social on impact its and
can lead to a deconstruction of of deconstruction a to lead can , (Laitin 1998) (Laitin k theoretical foundation with foundation theoretical k - ae ntok w will we networks based amework. Combining Combining amework.
, (Brubaker and and (Brubaker d look d CEU eTD Collection can “break self change can we paradigms relational Changing identity. social individual‟s upon have can networks personal finding important most the However, issue. the of framing broader a and developments further for allows studied case the least the not but Last analysis. and collection data for methods different on based design, th Methodologically, research. of kind any to opened are development theoretical the and schemata theoretical main The empirical. and theoretical, onallmethodological implication threelevels broader have can The present paper Hungarians in Serbia and Romania, in Ukraine,Russians Ukraine, in Romanians of case the at closelylook can one matter this for Europe, Eastern the citize of cross and country acquirement The context. broader a in viewed be should also on influence its or cross of capital construction social as as factors such even for can change we identity further, this much of implication move to us allow asked questions the with along approaches, methodological and theoretical the of combination The cases. of range diverse theoretical the of arg novelty The migrants. of generation third second, the ethnically for are or different, which groups social the for also applied be can approach methodological ethnic no betwee is difference there since one good a as Romania in Moldovans of case the took study the though Even schemata. identity “opened” more a toward identity their shape to also succeed ument and of the whole argument as such is rooted in the fact that it can be applied to a to applied be can it that fact the in rooted is such as argument whole the of and ument ” socialthrough identities diverse - n the groups, I believe the structure of the theoretical argument, and the the and argument, theoretical the of structure the believe I groups, the n border movements based on the kinship or ethnic ties is quite is ties ethnic or kinship the on based movements border - perception of yourself and of your own social group, therefore yes, we yes, therefore group, social own your of and yourself of perception - cutting cleavages. As regarding the case of Moldovans in Romania it it Romania in Moldovans of case the regarding As cleavages. cutting
of the present research is certainly related to the importance importance the to related certainly is research present the of
personal relational webpersonal ppr rsns s ih cmlx research complex a with us presents paper e 62
all post - Soviet republics.Soviet .
nship of another another of nship
present the k
in in CEU eTD Collection Multipl n=163 TimeRomania in (1 someone Moldovan,2 matters from interactions money Borrowing personal RoomatesBessarabians/Romanins Bessarabians/Romanians Important Bessarabians/RomaniansFriends Bessarabians/Romanians Daily Intercept Variables R Multiple n=167 TimeRomania in (1 someone Moldovan,2 matters from money interactions Borrowing personal RoomatesBessarabians/Romanins Bessarabian Important Friends Bessarabians/Romanians Bessarabians/Romanians Daily Intercept Variables group beliefs Regression 1. Appendix forPersonal Models Relational Web and Fundamental Table
Table e R e
4
s/Romanians - - . Perceived difference and Romanians between and Moldovans Pe squared: 0.132; Adjusted R Adjusted 0.132; squared: squared: 0.173; 0.173; squared: - - Doesn’t matter)Doesn’t matter)Doesn’t 5 . Interactions people fromand. region thesame Diverse relationalweb with
Adjusted R squared: 0.10; p 0.10; R squared: Adjusted
Relationship Relationship
- - - p p squared: 0.074 squared: - - - - 0.17 - 7.50 Estimate 0.12 - - - 0.36 - 5.1 Estimate - -
„***‟ 0.001 „***‟ 0.001 |„***‟ „**‟ 0.001 0. 0. 0.05 1.14 0.05 0.04 0.32 0. 1.53 13 12 01
Appendi and sport and sport
Web. Web. |„**‟ ; 63 p - value:0.001 -
value: 0.0114 value: variable variable 0.01 | | 0.01 „*‟ 0.05 `.` 0.1 | | 0.01 „*‟ 0.05 `.` 0.1
ces
s s
ex ex
cluded cluded
0.00** 0.72 0.60 0.01* 0.03* 1.2e P 0. 0.00 0. 0. 0.40 0.81 <2e P 0.3 - - 93 24 34 value value
-
*** 14*** -
rsonal Relational rsonal 16***
. CEU eTD Collection R Multiple n=60 Relationship TimeRomania in (1 someone from Moldovan, 2 matters money interactions Borrowing personal Roomates Bessarabians/Romanins Bessarabians/Romanians Important Bessarabians/RomaniansFriends Bessarabians/Roman Daily Intercept Variables p R Multiple n=61 Relationship TimeRomania in (1 someone Moldovan, matters from money interactions Borrowing personal Roomates Bessarabians/Romanins Bessarabians/Romanians Important Friends Bessarabians/Romanians Bessarabians/Romanians Daily Intercept Variables - value: 0.0131 value: Table
Table
6 2 - -
. - squared: 0.226; 0.226; squared: squared: 0.1663; 0.1663; squared: - Perceived differenceand Romanians between and Moldovans Doesn‟t matter) Doesn‟t Doesn’t matter)Doesn’t 7
. Bessarabians ians
Adjusted R Adjusted
Adjusted R Adjusted
–
United and Group PersonalWeb. Distinct Relational
Relationship variable included - - Relationship variable included - p p squared: squared: - - - squared: 0.08295 squared: 7.44 Estimate - - - 0.10 0.09 0. 5.15 Estimate - - - 0.05 0.13 0.14 -
„***‟ 0.001 |„***‟ „**‟ 0.001 „***‟ 0.001 |„***‟ „**‟ 0.001 0. 0.08 0.23 0. 1.98 0.59 1.13 15 20 67
0.1499 0.1499
Web 64
; .
p 0.01 | | 0.01 „*‟ 0.05 `.` 0.1 0.01 | | 0.01 „*‟ 0.05 `.` 0.1 - value: 0.08041 value:
0. 0. 0.4 0. 0.11 0.00*** <5. P 0.26 0. 0.98 0.47 0. 0.35 0.00*** <2.67e P - - 87 01** 83 49 73 Personal Relational Personal value value
93e
- - 15*** 08***
CEU eTD Collection 2. Questionnaire, Appendix R Multiple n=59 Relationshi TimeRomania in (1 someone Moldovan,2 matters from money interactions Borrowing personal Roomates Bessarabians/Romanins Bessarabians/Romanians Important Friend Bessarabians/Romanians Daily Intercept Variables Table MeasuringGroup Group Beliefs,Beliefs Fundamental Additional and Relational Personal 8. 7. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1.
s Bessarabians/Romanians
8
interact with people On ascale from 10 1to (1 c. b. a. Have you you applied/do hold Romanian citizenship at the present m Which are the most important characteristics Bessarabians of from city the you are studying? Explain in few words what wordthe “Bessarabian” means for you? b. a. the following statements? On ascale from 10 1to (1 10 On ascale from 10, 1to how different are Bessarabians from Romanians? (1 In whichdoyou context mention that you are from Moldova? (opened question) d. c. b. a. How often doyou mention that you are from Moldova w . Necessity samefrom regionRelationalWeb. people tointeract with the andPersonal
p -
squared: 0.2011; 0.2011; squared: - – Doesn’t matter)Doesn’t Don‟t know/Don‟tDon‟t want to answer No I applied/ not I did don‟t hold Romanian citizenship Yes I have applied/I Romanian hold citizenship Bessarabians are united an and distinc Bessarabians should promote their own culture within Romanian society know/Don‟tDon‟t want to answer Not at all Not sooften Often,
very different)
Adjusted R Adjusted
s from the same region/city/country you? as
Measurement tool
Relationship variable included - – –
p Interview
- not not important; 10 do not agree; 10 - squared: 0.1383; 0.1383; squared: 0. 7.77 Estimate 0.77 - - - 0.08 0.11
„***‟ 0.001 |„***‟ „**‟ 0.001 0. 2.03 0.43 13 10
Guide Web 65 t groupt within Romanians society 1
p , –
- 0.01 | | 0.01 „*‟ 0.05 `.` 0.1 – Questionnaire
value: 0.02489 value: totally agree), how much doyou agree with
very important), how important is for you to and the Summaryand ofInterviews the
hen introducing anew to person?
.
0.38 0. 0. 0.14 0. 0.18 0.0 5.33e P oment? - 70 00*** 74 value 1**
-
09***
–
not d
ifferent;
CEU eTD Collection
11. 10. 9. 28. 27. 26. 25. 24. 23. 22. 21. 20. 19. 18. 17. 16. 15. 14. 13. 12.
b. a. Is from she f. e. d. Do you have girlfriend/wife? a How many y of How many your of roommates are Moldovans? c. b. a. Do you share the apartment/room other with persons? How many teammates are Moldovans? How many teammates are Romanians? c. b. a. Do you practice any team spor How many those of are Moldovans? How many those of are Romanians? With how many you persons discuss can important personal matters? How many those of are Moldovans? How many those of are Romanians? With how many yo people How many Bessarabian friends you say can you have? How many Romanian friends you say can you have? c. b. a. According which to calendar doyou celebrate religious holidays? f. e. d. c. b. a. How often you participate at events organized by the Bessarabian community from your city? c. b. a. following categories? On ascale from 10 1to (1 c. b. a. you choose? Ifyou would have to initiate business a with a Romanian with or a Moldovan, whom would
Romania Moldova know/don‟tDon‟t want to answer No know/don‟tDon‟t want to answer No Yes know/don‟tDon‟t want to answer No Yes Do celebrate not Gregorian Julian know/Don‟tDon‟t want to answer Do participa not Once in a year Once in a half a year Several times amonth Weekly People general in Romanians Bessarabians Does not matter A Moldovan A Romanian Yes
ou roommates are Romanians?
te
u interact on adaily basis? –
no trust at all; 10 t?
66
–
very much how m trust),
uch would you trust
CEU eTD Collection discussion. the of guide depe were not, some directly, where addressed questions of the some were moreopened interviews the Since interviews. 21 IntroductoryPart 1. questions The discussion. anonymity.] you the guaranty to present the order in details of personal the change will context I and interests the academic in strictly used in be will gather will important I responses consider you issues whatever discussion into bring semi a of one resemble may discussion the of the though format Even on. interested am I issues particular some about more me tell to you ask to like would I issue In Romania. in accommodation and self the about perception on have can interaction personal and communications importance the about thesis my writing am I Budapest. in University [ 4. 3. 2. 1. My name is Sor is name My
The present guide is translated from Romanian and represents a structure which guided mostly the mostly the guided which structure a represents and fromRomanian isguide translated The present
Topic guidefor semi 32. 31. 30. 29. 34. 33. youDid from toRomania? knowsomebody here coming before youWhycome toRomania tostudy? to decided did youWhere are from Moldova? What are youyour areWhat Tell memore impression studying? of about Romania
b. a. In whi e. d. c. b. a. For howlong you are staying Romania in d. c. b. a. Occupation Gender Age d. c. b. a. Ifyou would need financial help, whoto would you go first of all? c.
Cluj Bucharest More than 4years Between 3 Between 2 Between 1 Less than a year Other situation Unemployed Employed Student know/don‟tDon‟t want to answer Doesn‟t matter A Romanian A Moldovan friend know/don‟tDon‟t want to answer
nding on the situation, therefore the structure of the guide should be understood more a as a more understood be should guide the of therefore structure the situation, the on nding ch city are you living?
in Cebotari, I Cebotari, in - Napoca
- - - 4 years 4 years 3 years 2
friend -
structured interviews exploring the question of social identity of exploring social forstructured interviews thequestion
am a second MA student, at Political Science Department at Central European European Central at Department Science Political at student, MA second a am
Measurement tool
Moldovans Romania. in
67 - structured interview, I would like to encourage you to to you encourage to like would I interview, structured
2 . Interview..
21
order to have a clear picture of this this of picture clear a have to order
CEU eTD Collection Similitudes Moldovans and Romanian between Maindifferences 14. 13. Part 4.Closing part 12. 11. 10. Part 3.Networks and trust 9. 8. 7. 6. 5. Part 2.Perception
Would you Would (why) a totrust Moldovan more thana be inclined Romanian? Arecultural thereany and differences Moldovans? between Romanians you do What areWhat important themost characteristics ofa Moldovan? your (Why?)In from opinion, are different Romanians? somehow Moldovans youyouHave (indetail) adaptationany with had problems when inRomania? came Any questions interested. if other you do What aftergraduation/in want dothenear future? to (why)matter is he/sheisRomanian orMoldovan? you toborrowIf a does moneyor person, from it toaperson wouldhave toborrow youyouHow do (with who tospend prefer free time? Tabl e
9 . Summar
think RomaniansaboutMoldovans? think think of the “self”andof the of the“others”
y
of the interviews with the main findingsinterviewsof the withthemain onthesubject researched 9 holidays,like the even Russians, by influenced different are be We somehowdifferent is food different,the even are We different dialect a speakingin havewe withMoldovans speaking are we when but Romanian, speak wecan dialect, havespecific a We words yourfor responsible be to like that r we were word, respectingtheir not they here, are differentlyact I John
.
John and Bob‟sJohn answers th
ofMay . cause wewere cause
.
68
.
aised aised
m?)
cigarettes and coffee mostlyabout T Moldova in back withtanks traveling T them understood And T that for lot a got beaten would you inyouMoldova that if like lot, a talk swearing are they behavingdifferently, are We tough we are thinks Romanians speak. interact, isan importan There willnot you,Romanians and help will always Russians Romanians, than better Russiansare withMoldovans Russian always cantalk You Tradition us understand not do Romanians different istotally Language Different religio helpyou to ask to and come to Romanian a will be don‟t thinkI more that united, are We friendlier. not so they are friendship, bigdifference,is a culture There Bob hey are not drinking so much tea, they are are they muchtea, so hey not drinking are you are say they heyRussians, we are think accent our understand heywant to don‟t
when they wewhenthey
and and . culture
n .
.
re talking so fast I did not fast did I so talking re
t differenc
are different are
.
e in the way weway in e the .
.
CEU eTD Collection Similitudes Moldovans and Romanian between Maindifferences Label Identification Trustfulness Interactions Table
10
Summary of the interviews with the main fin interviewsSummary ofthe withthemain
got to understand it is not like that not like it is understand got to you period me,a but after understand willhe and Moldovan he is think You shock the cultural of region because same from the withpeople interact I Atbeginning the introducing myself introducing when thenationality about don‟t care I from come I where me isimportant For it family with the like identification meis For Moldova us. Russians are You from Moldova are you that say important to it is Sometime us. different from educated were they trust to them; ishard It Moldova culture, our know to interested quite They are There is There past ofour and education matter of a iswhich also them, apply to you can violence fearthethey word their respect Moldovans them. for than moreimportant is family usfor culture, of moresense archaic have a We influence Russian dialect The working and thinking way different of to accustomed are we Romanians, and Romania have I som differences bigno a there issues levelofpractical theat big, not so are differences The ofdialogues different types c differently about are We ofjokes theat level Also inRussian. fo interesting more is shows,it Different TV isdifference There Dan ommunication; we are accustomed to to accustomed we are ommunication;
.
no e disappointments regarding regarding disappointments e
difference in terms of differenceterms in DanIren‟sanswers and r m r
.
e to watch something watchsomething to e nculture , that what they say to to whatsaythey that ,
was selecting to to was selecting
69
.
because because
dings onthesubject researched
Both, Romanians and Moldovans are partying are Moldovans and Romanians Both, which change cannot insidejokes some are there and myaccent, still I have respect worth provethat I to anything,had I prove to in t are Romanians other each helpful to and united, as ofthemselves think Moldovan‟s educated more smarter, them considering beginning, from the superior Romanians as treated I the family to moreattached they are Romania thefamily about waythink they in even the difference is The girla theyapproach way the in even Romanian, a and Moldovan a between difference the cansee You fromMoldova amthat I will think never me they that to say Everybody du uneducated, meas anthink to of wantedpeople didn‟t I fighting they and are drinking, are they Bessarabian, havepre a People Iren Student oftheusing label clear Moldovan, grew I there wasand there born I Because meam I for that Moldovan isveryIt important Education Romanian. would t trust I never I many so times. Moldovan to forget,it happens theyyou and something, promising They are 90/10% Romanians, trust cannot You more90/10% are Moldovans t is mostly education t isabout
.
.
. ns seems to be more traditionalists, moretraditionalists, be nsto seems
mb or a whore mba or .
- conception about about conception heir country, they don‟t have have don‟t they heircountry, . o borrow money frommoney a borrow o
.
.
.
.
s as well but not but well sas .
.
.
.
CEU eTD Collection Label Identification Trustfulness Interactions
different types ofpersons different types met have I isbigdifference, no There offriendship. sametype hav partyingsame, are the We culture. advantage or disadvantage you disadvantage or advantage would that isnotsomething It discussion a into issue determinant isnota It familiarity. a in talking we are Just incases youmake different accent can thejust period, theaccommodation 1 first the in just Romania in Moldovans the talk about to isok It
70
- 2 years, afteryears, 2
ingth
e I‟m not saying that I am from Moldova from am I that notI‟m saying went you whereor done, youhad what knows everybody Mold wouldmoreRomanian, a I trust theirtime wayofspending same the having thesame, ovan community is small and afterthat and small is ovancommunity
CEU eTD Collection Gesthuizen,Debby, and MarcelLubbers. "Ethnic diversityand social capital in Europe:test Gellner,Ernst. Fukuyama,Francis. "Social Capital and Civil Society." European Center forStudies Ethnic of Problems. "Etnosfera."2012. Erikson,Erik H. Deutsch,Karl. Costa,Dora, and Matth Cerulo,Karen A. "Identity Construction: New Issues,New Directions." Calhoun,Craig. "The Variability Belonging,of a Reply RogersBrubaker."to Alan,Bullok, and Stephen Trombley. Bullock,Allan, Trombley,Stephen. Brubaker,Rogers, and Frederick Cooper. "Beyond Identity." Brewer,Marilynn "TheB. many offaces Social Identity:Implication forPolitical Psyhology." Barth,Fredrik. Bar Bahry,Donna,Mijhail Kosolapov, Polina Kozy Badescu, Gabriel,and Eric M. Ulsaner. Ale Bibliography sina,Alberto, and Eliana Ferrara. La "Who others."trust - Tal,and Danies. "Group Beliefsas Expressionan Social of Identity." In 121 o Putnam'sthesis in European countries" GenerationReforms. http://www.etnosfera.ro/pdf/2012/3/04.pdf(accessed May 2013). 27, nationality. PerspectivePoliticson Sociology 5582003: PoliticalPsyholgy 1998. byS. J.F Worchel, 5212005: EvidencesRussia."from Routledge,2003. 2072002: - 142.
Nationalismand social communication: an inquiry into the foundations of EthnicGroups andBoundaries. Nations andNationalism. Identity,
, 1997: , 385 - - -
568. 532. 234. Cambridge: MITPress, 1953.
ewKahn."Community engagement and communityheterogenity."
Youth andCrisis. , 2001: , 11 . Morales, . D. Paez, &J.C. Deschamps, 93
- Washington DC, Washington 1999. 409. , 1032003: The AmericanPolitical Science ReviewVol 99, No 4
5 TheNew Fontana Dictionaryof Modern Thought. - 125. The NewFontana Dictionaryof Moder SocialCapital and Transition to Democracy.
NewCornell York: University 1983.Press,
-
111. NewYork: Norton, 1968. 71 reva, and reva, Rick K. "Ethnicity Wilson. and Trust:
Waveland1998. Press,
." ScandinavianPolitical Studies
IMF conferenceof Second Jurnalof Public Economics 85 Theoryand Society
- 113.London: SAGE, AnnualReviewof
n Thought. SocialIdentity Ethnicities ,2000: 1 , 2009: ,
London: 1999. ,Nov. ,
1999. - 47. , ,
CEU eTD Collection Schwartz,Raviv. "Internati Sanders,Jimy. "EthnicBoundaries and Identityin PluralSocieties." Rousseau,David, and Mauritus Vander Veen. "The Emergence ofa Shared Id Risse, Tom."Social Constructivism and European Integration."In Putnam,Robert. "Diversity and Community in twenty Muntean,Igor. "SocialMultipolarity and Political Violence." In Laitin,David D. Pal.Kolsto, "The new Russian diaspora — Pal.Kolsto, King,Charles. "Moldovan Identityand IPP. "Barometrul OpinieiPublice." Iglič,Hajdeja. "Trustnetworks and democratic transition: Yugoslavia the in mid Gorlich,Dennis, and Christoph Trebesch."Seasonal Mig Glazer,N.,and Moynihan D.P. . Politicalconstruction sites nati : September29, 2012). http://www.iom.md/materials/9_diaspora_and_ocv_final_report_eng.pdf (accessed Migrationweb page. Sociology Resolution Agentbased computer simulation ofidea ofdiffusion"." 2004. Theory NordicPolitical Science Associatio 197Kolsto, ViolentConflict in Pos Ithaca,NY: Cornell University Press, 1998. forRussians in FormerSoviet Republics." Westview2000.Press, Estonia andMoldova . 3451994: http://www.ipp.md/libview.php?l=ro&idc=156&id=624(accessed March 2013). Uslaner,10 SocialCapital and the Transition to Democracy Moldova'slabour exodus." Italians,Irish of New the City.York Nationalintegration and violent conflictin post
,by Antie & ThomasWiener, Diez,144 Identityin formation: Russian the , 2002: , 327 - , 2005: , 686 368. - - 233.Lanham: Rowman &Littlefield PublishingGroup, 2002. 28.London: Routledge,2003.
onalOrganization for Migration."
2007. -
357. t -
- 712.
Lanham:Rowman &Littlefield, 2002. SovietSocietes. The Cases of Estonia and Moldova Beyond Melting the pot, Negros, the Puerto RIcansJews,
Reviewof world economics
Institutulde Politici Publice Moldova. on -
buildingin Russia andthepost ThePolitics of Pan -
Anidentity itsof own? Possible identitytrajectories n
Cambridge:MIT press, 1970. , 2007. , 72
- Ethnic and RacialStudies
speakingpopulations in near the abroad. - first century." first - 160. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, , by , GabrielBade rationand networks: evidence on - Romanianism." - Soviet societies:the cases of InternationalOrganization for National Integrationand ,2008: 107 TheJournal of Conflict EuropeanIntegration AnnualReviewof Jurnal Compilation 2007
- Sovietstates.
November2012.
scu,&Eric M. - SlavicReview 133. ,1996: 609
- entity:An 1980s." In
, by , Pal
Boudler:
- 639. ,
CEU eTD Collection Paul,Zak, and Stephan Knack. "Trustand Growth." Stark, and O., D. Bloom. New"The Economics of LabourMigration." Smith,Graham, and Andrew "Rethinkig Wilson. Russia'sPost Skvortsova,Alla. "The Cultulral and Social Makeup of Moldova: ABipolar orDispersed Shils,Edward. "Primordial, Personal, Sacred and Civil Ties.Some Economic Europe PotentialPolitical for M Littlefield Publishing Group,2002. Casesof Estonia and Moldova Society."In 1301957: the reationship ofsocilolgical research and theory." - Asia Studies ,1985: 173 - 145. National Integrationand Viol
, 1997: , 845 - 178. obilisationEastern in Ukraine and North
, by , Pal Kolsto, 159 - 864.
73
ent Conflict ent in Post The Econom - 197.Lanham: Rowman and The British Journalof Sociology - SovietDiaspora: The icJournal - particulobservations on SovietSocietes. The The American - EastEstonia." , 2001: , 295 - 321. ,