Relational place-making in Maramureş, Romania A case-study about landscape transformation, cultural heritage protection, migration and tourism; and the role of the politics of place, connectivity and practices in this re-making of place Anthonet Baijense 2 3 Relational place-making in Maramureş, Romania A case-study about landscape transformation, cultural heritage protection, migration and tourism; and the role of the politics of place, connectivity and practices in this re-making of place Anthonet Baijense November, 2013 [email protected] Wageningen University – Department of Social Sciences MSc International Development Studies (Research Master Variant - Specialisation Sociology of Rural Development) WUR student registration number: 88090439080 MSc Thesis for the Rural Development Group and the Environmental Policy Group Thesis Supervisors: dr. ir. D. Roep and dr. ir. P.J.M. Oosterveer Thesis Codes: RDS-80436 and ENP-80424 4 5 Abstract Since the 1990s, authors like Doreen Massey started to think space relationally rather than in structuralist terms. In a relational approach to place, places are seen as products of practices and interrelations. As Michael Woods stresses, it is necessary to overcome the urban bias in globalization studies and study the relations between globalization and ruralities. Such bias enables myths about globalization, like the belief that globalization is an abstract, unlocated and homogenising force. A relational approach to place does away with such myths, stressing that globalization is emplaced, rooted in and co-constituted by the ‘local’, in practices and places. Such a relational approach to place, is illustrated in this thesis with a case-study from Maramureş, Romania. Maramureş is formally represented and branded as a traditional region, but its architecture exemplifies that modernization is part of Maramureş as well. Larger and more modern houses are built by migrants and by guesthouse owners, facilitated by the relations and interconnections they have with other people and other places. While some residents thus built new, hybrid spatial identities and spatial practices, the clash between the formal representation and the resulting new landscape creates a conflict over the identity of place. Hence, these politics of place evokes practices of cultural heritage protection and the creation and exploitation of associated interconnectivities, aiming to preserve and create an ‘authentic’ and ‘traditional’ Maramureş. However, the politics of place also offers room for negotiation and the formation of new forms of spatial identity and spatial practice: the creation of a multiplicity of neo-traditional architectural styles, resulting in the hybridization of the landscape. A relational perspective to place, applied to Maramureş, exemplifies that the relation between globalization and ruralities is not one of domination, subordination, nor victimization; but of hybridization, negotiation and contestation. Moreover, the case illustrates that places are relational, products of practices and interconnectivities; and that the global is co-constituted by places, as well by ruralities. Keywords: Relational place; Place-making; Globalization; Politics of place; Practices; Connectivity; Romania 6 Table of Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 5 Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................... 6 List of Images ......................................................................................................................................... 10 List of Tables .......................................................................................................................................... 10 Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................................. 13 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 16 1.1 Introduction: research problem and research objective ...................................................... 16 1.1 Methods ................................................................................................................................ 17 2 Theoretical Framework: Relational Places .................................................................................... 22 2.1 Academic Debates on Globalization and Place ..................................................................... 22 2.1.1 Globalization: time/space and networks/interaction ................................................... 22 2.1.2 ‘Thinking space relationally’ .......................................................................................... 23 2.2 The Relational Approach to Place Applied to Rural Studies .................................................. 26 2.2.1 The Global Countryside ................................................................................................. 26 2.2.2 Place-conflicts and Place-frames ................................................................................... 28 3 Maramureş, Romania .................................................................................................................... 32 3.1 Geography of Maramureş ..................................................................................................... 32 3.1.1 Administrative and Demographic characteristics of Maramureş ................................. 32 3.1.2 Mountains and Rivers of Maramureş ............................................................................ 32 3.1.3 Maramureş: Lands and Valleys ...................................................................................... 36 3.2 History of Maramureş ................................................................................................................. 37 3.2.1 1918 – 1930s ................................................................................................................. 37 3.2.2 1940 – 1945 .......................................................................................................................... 38 3.2.3 1947 – 1989 ................................................................................................................... 38 3.2.4 1989 – 2012 ................................................................................................................... 39 7 3.3 Economy and Development .................................................................................................. 39 3.3.1 The communist economy (1947 – 1989) ....................................................................... 39 3.3.2 The economy of Maramureş after the Revolution ........................................................ 40 3.3.3 Development in Maramureş: Regional inequalities ...................................................... 41 4 Relational place-making in Maramureş, Romania ........................................................................ 46 4.1 The Rural Idyll and the Formal Representation of Maramureş............................................. 46 4.1.1 The Land of Old: Tradition, Authenticity and the Absence of Modernity ..................... 46 4.1.2 Rurality and Nature ....................................................................................................... 49 4.1.3 Romanticism and Nostalgia ........................................................................................... 50 4.1.4 Conclusion: The Formal Representation reflects the Rural Idyll ................................... 53 4.2 Vernacular Architecture and the Formal Representation ..................................................... 54 4.2.1 The Wood Civilization of Maramureş ............................................................................ 54 4.2.2 Wooden Houses and their Gates................................................................................... 56 4.2.3 Wooden Churches ......................................................................................................... 57 4.2.4 Conclusion: The Land of Wood as a Cultural Desire ...................................................... 61 4.3 A Conflict over the Landscape and the Formal Representation ........................................... 62 4.3.1 The Discursive Transformation of the Maramureş Landscape ..................................... 62 4.3.2 Discursive and Material Landscape Transformation: a Clash ........................................ 64 4.3.2 Conclusion: The Politics of Place: Conflict, Actors and Frames ..................................... 67 5 Cultural Heritage Protection in Maramureş .................................................................................. 73 5.1 Poienile Izei and The Pious Paraschiva Church ..................................................................... 73 5.1.1 Poienile Izei: Local Initiatives and Practices of Cultural Heritage Protection ................ 73 5.1.2 UNESCO Patrimonies and Actors ................................................................................... 76 5.1.3 From Parish Church to World Heritage: The Process of Inscription .............................. 78 5.1.4 Proposals, Initiatives and Obstacles .............................................................................. 84 5.1.5 Conclusion: