Abstract
This chapter analyzes the relationship of ethnicity and marriage (ethnic endogamy and exogamy) and the process of ethnic socialization in ethnically mixed families in Transylvania. Both phenomena are analyzed in relation to the processes of ethnic boundary-making and reinforcement. The chapter contains a detailed analysis of the factors that increase the likelihood of ethnic intermarriage and that influence the outcome of ethnic socialization in ethnically mixed marriages. The main finding is that the relatively high levels of ethnic mixing are not conducive to the blurring of ethnic boundaries between Hungarians and Romanians. This apparently puzzling phenomenon is explained as a consequence of the meso-level institutional strategies and boundary policing of the Hungarian elites.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
The often-used bridge metaphor suggests that intermarriage increases social cohesion and reduces the propensity of intergroup conflict. This integrationist perspective is dominant in the literature of intermarriage. See Kalmijn (1998), Gündüz‐Hoşgör and Smits (2002), Monden and Smits (2005), Smits (2010), and Bolovan and Dumănescu (2017).
- 2.
This is a non-mainstream perspective in the literature about ethnic intermarriage. One must also mention sociolinguistic investigations connected to the “Ethnolinguistic Vitality” framework that seek to identify the factors “which make a group likely to behave as a distinctive and active collective entity in intergroup situations” (Giles et al. 1977, p. 308). See also Yagmur and Ehala (2011).
- 3.
Analysts who subscribe to (an unreflected form of) the integrationist perspective often forget to make the essential distinction between groupness and closure. For an academic article that is a telling example for treating the groupness of the minority on an equal footing with state-sponsored exclusion exercised by majority elites, see Bolovan and Eppel (2017, pp. 23–24).
- 4.
Those who are members of a minority category in one dimension can be members of the dominant category in another. For instance, a Transylvanian Hungarian can be majoritarian as non-Roma (i.e., against Roma) and as a Romanian citizen (against immigrants and refugees). According to surveys conducted in 2014 and 2016, Transylvanian Hungarians are even more intolerant vis-á-vis Roma and immigrants than ethnic Romanians. This, of course, has nothing to do with groupness but it does involve the exclusion of vulnerable groups.
- 5.
Many bilingual Hungarians speak Romanian with an accent that is clearly distinguishable from that of native speakers of Romanians. However, this is of little social consequence. According to a 2008 survey conducted by the Romanian Institute for Research on National Minorities, only slightly more than 5% of Hungarians reported having experienced individual-level discrimination on the labor market or in various institutional settings.
- 6.
The literature focuses mainly on situations where third-party factors oppose intermarriage and (similarly to the archetypical situation of Romeo and Juliet) crosscut individual preferences. Nevertheless, in some societies dominant norms and discourses facilitate intermarriage. Lamarckian eugenics and the consequent ideology of racial whitening prevalent in Brazil and other Latin American countries are examples of such discourses (Sheriff 2001; Osuji 2013). If assimilation is a collective strategy, minority institutional actors can also be supportive of exogamy.
- 7.
I find Thornton’s (2005) concept of developmental idealism useful in this respect. The author argues that the belief that there is a causal relation between norms concerning family and reproduction on the one hand and socioeconomic development on the other has played a crucial role in the spread of modern (meaning Western) models and norms of family formation. Consequently, norms that are in opposition to the Western/modern model (among them the direct influence of third parties on partner choice) have been associated with backwardness and this perception has become an important driver of societal change.
- 8.
Initially, the concept was coined by Becker (1973) who adapted the model of rational choice to partner selection. Ultimately, it became an expression widely also used by analysts who do not fully accept the model proposed by Becker.
- 9.
See Kalmijn and Tubergen (2010).
- 10.
This is why the odds ratio (OR) indicator (to be discussed later) represents an attempt to model the tendency toward exogamy independent of group size.
- 11.
For a similar interpretation of mixed marriages involving Swedish speakers in Finland and Protestants in the Republic of Ireland see Finnäs and O’Leary (2003).
- 12.
In the context of Transylvania the question was raised by Szabolcs László (2013), relying on a different terminology, namely that of cultural hybridity borrowed from post-colonial studies—see Bhabha (1994), Hannerz (2000), and Pieterse (2001). By hybridization László meant a conceptual framework which unmakes the binary opposition between majority and minority. This, according to László, increases the possibility of a more “liberal” ethno-political discourse. In my opinion, the qualifier “integrationist” would be more appropriate for such an ethno-political discourse.
- 13.
- 14.
The number of cases is the following: 85,443 in 1977, 82,328 in 1992, 72,981 in 2002, and 62,167 in 2011.
- 15.
The number of cases is 8401 in 1977, 10,863 in 1992, 7127 in 2002, and 4450 in 2011.
- 16.
See Finnäs (1997) for the case of Swedish speakers of Finland, Kalmijn et al. (2005) for the Netherlands and Dribe and Lundh (2011) for Sweden. For Transylvanian Hungarians, the 2006 wave of the Turning Points of our Life-course survey can be cited. See: http://demografia.hu/hu/tudastar/adatbazisok/22-adatbazisok/160-eletunk-fordulopontjai. This survey collected data for 1326 representatively selected (first) marriages. Eight percent of the ethnically homogenous and 17.6% of the ethnically mixed marriages had ended in divorce by the date of the survey.
- 17.
In the case of ethnic Romanian women, the frequency of international marriages has increased even more. Many of them perceive this type of marriage as a means of social mobility. However, as Levchenko (2013) has emphasized, some of the Eastern European women engaged in international marriages become very vulnerable.
- 18.
- 19.
According to the data compiled by Râmneamțu, 39% of those marrying were of Hungarian background.
- 20.
The odds ratio (OR) is an indicator which expresses the tendency toward endogamy compared to the hypothetical situation when ethnic preferences do not play any role in partner selection. Values of OR higher than 1 indicate that the inclination toward endogamy is higher than what it would be in the case of random partner selection, and the higher the value of OR, the greater the tendency toward endogamy. See Kalmijn (1998, p. 405).
- 21.
The suggestion of the existence of such a trans-ethnic middle-class culture is a quite interesting and important hypothesis due to the fact that both the nationalizing project strongly promoted by the Romanian state and the community- and social pillar-building strategies of the minority elites relied primarily on urban middle classes during the interwar period. See also Livezeanu (1995).
- 22.
Interestingly, my account contrasts with a recently published article by Hărăguş (2017) who analyzed the 1977, 1992, and 2002 IPUMS-International databases and concluded that exogamy has increased over the last few decades.
- 23.
Other relevant Eastern European minorities include the Albanians in Macedonia, the Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo, the Croats in Bosnia, the Romanians and Hungarians in Ukraine, the Turks in Bulgaria and the Poles in Lithuania. For Western Europe, Germans in South Tyrol would also be worth being included into the table.
- 24.
See Horowitz (1985, pp. 22–36).
- 25.
IPUMS databases only contain information about residence at the level of county and type of settlement, thus the proportion of Hungarians in the settlements where the respondents resided cannot be determined. The weighted ratio was used as a proxy for this variable, calculated using the following formula: Ps = ∑(p i × Pi)/Ptot, where p i is the proportion of Hungarians by settlement; Pi is the number of Hungarians in the same settlement; and Ptot is the total number of Hungarians in the whole territory (in our case, by county and type of settlement).
- 26.
The impact of this factor is accentuated even more if one analyzes differences in intermarriage at aggregate level.
- 27.
The census of 1977 did not record religion, while in the 2011 IPUMS-International database all Christian denominations were lumped together.
- 28.
On status diffusion, see Merton (1941).
- 29.
Laitin’s (1998) model of assimilation is quite similar, and Brubaker also strongly relies on this model.
- 30.
As described in Chapter 7, the Orthodox and Greek Catholic Churches are considered Romanian (with the exception of Satu-Mare/Szatmár county, where there are Hungarian-speaking Greek Catholic parishes too), while the Reformed, Unitarian, Evanghelic-Lutheran, and Roman Catholic Churches are perceived as Hungarian denominations.
- 31.
The institutionalist framework used in this volume to analyze political processes might be useful in the study of mixed marriages too. For an interpretation of path dependence in terms of increasing returns, see Pierson (2000).
- 32.
In this sense, I employ the notion of regimes of counting, as used in Chapter 10.
- 33.
Of course, this varies regionally. In the ethnic block area of Székely Land the Hungarian alternative might be the unmarked one, and keeping open the Romanian alternative may require some extra effort. However, no investigation concerning mixed marriages similar to that of Telegdi-Csetri (2017) and Brubaker et al. (2006) has been conducted in the Hungarian ethnic block area.
- 34.
The mother tongue and registered ethnicity are the same in 90% of cases.
- 35.
Laitin (1995, pp. 34–35) emphasizes that the cultural norms and practices of the majority are changing and, consequently, minorities are shooting at a “moving target”. In the present case, the most important element of cultural adaptation is that one prefers to speak in Romanian.
- 36.
As suggested by surveys conducted by the Romanian Institute for Research on National Minorities.
- 37.
According to an informal interview conducted by the author with an RMDSZ member of the Census Committee (Attila Markó), the then-president of RMDSZ (Béla Markó) argued personally for this decision which was also supported by other leading RMDSZ members.
- 38.
See Új kiáltó szó a nagybányai és bányavidéki magyarságért! Krónika, 15 June 2012. https://kronika.ro/szempont/uj-kialto-szo-a-nagybanyai-es-banyavideki-magyarsagert/print.
For interpretations, see Culic (2016, p. 207); Bolovan and Eppel (2017, pp. 23–24).
- 39.
The 1992 census in Baia Mare/Nagybánya counted approximately 26,000 ethnic Hungarians; by 2002 this number had decreased to 20,000, and by 2011 to 14,000. The proportion of the Hungarian population had thus decreased from 17.4 to 12.3% over a period of twenty years.
References
Alba, R. (2005). Bright vs. blurred boundaries: Second-generation assimilation and exclusion in France, Germany, and the United States. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 28(1), 20–49.
Alba, R. D., & Nee, V. (2003). Remaking the American mainstream: Assimilation and contemporary immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bartha, A., & Decsi, S. (1938). Az erdélyi szórványkérdés: 80 mezőségi falu alapján: Jakabffy Elemér Alapítvány kézirat-katalógusa K43.
Becker, G. S. (1973). A theory of marriage: Part I. Journal of Political Economy, 81(4), 813–846.
Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The location of culture. London and New York: Routledge.
Blau, P. M., Blum, T. C., & Schwartz, J. E. (1982). Heterogeneity and intermarriage. American Sociological Review, 47(1), 45.
Bolovan, I., & Dumănescu, L. (Eds.). (2017). Intermarriage in Transylvania, 1895–2010. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Edition.
Bolovan, I., & Eppel, M. (2017). Churches and interfaith marriages in Transylvania: From 1895 to the present. In I. Bolovan & L. Dumănescu (Eds.), Intermarriage in Transylvania, 1895–2010 (pp. 23–47). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Edition.
Brubaker, R. (2004). Ethnicity without groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Brubaker, R., Feischmidt, M., Fox, J., & Grancea, L. (2006). Nationalist politics and everyday ethnicity in a Transylvanian town. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Bucur, M. (2002). Eugenics and modernization in interwar Romania. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Csata, I., & Kiss, T. (2007). Népesedési perspektívák. Az erdélyi magyar népesség regionálisan tagolt népesség-előreszámítása 2022-ig és 2032-ig. Kolozsvár: Kriterion.
Culic, I. (2016). Hungarian society in Romania: Political project and practical reality. In S. P. Ramet & M. Valenta (Eds.), Ethnic minorities and politics in post-socialist southeastern Europe (pp. 191–210). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dribe, M., & Lundh, C. (2011). Cultural dissimilarity and intermarriage. A longitudinal study of immigrants in Sweden 1990–2005. International Migration Review, 45(2), 297–324.
Egry, G. (2015). Etnicitás, identitás, politika: magyar kisebbségek nacionalizmus és regionalizmus között Romániában és Csehszlovákiában 1918–1944 (Első kiadás. ed.). Budapest: Napvilág.
Fearon, J. D., & Laitin, D. D. (2000). Violence and the social construction of ethnic identity. International Organization, 54(4), 845–877.
Finnäs, F. (1997). Social integration, heterogeneity, and divorce: The case of the Swedish-speaking population in Finland. Acta Sociologica, 40(3), 263–277.
Finnäs, F., & O’Leary, B. (2003). Choosing for the children: The affiliation of the children of minority-majority group intermarriages. European Sociological Review, 19(5), 483–499.
Finnäs, F. (2013). Finlandssvenskarna 2012. En statistisk rapport. Svenska Finlands folkting, Helsinki.
Giles, H., Bourhis, R. Y., & Taylor, D. M. (1977). Toward a theory of language in ethnic group relations. In H. Giles (Ed.), Language, ethnicity, and intergroup relations (pp. 307–348). London and New York: Academic Press.
Goldscheider, C. (1986). Jewish continuity and change: Emerging patterns in America. Jewish political and social studies. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Gordon, M. M. (1964). Assimilation in American life: The role of race, religion, and national origins. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gorenburg, D. (2006). Rethinking interethnic marriage in the Soviet Union. Post-Soviet Affairs, 22(2), 145–165.
Gündüz-Hoşgör, A., & Smits, J. (2002). Intermarriage between Turks and Kurds in contemporary Turkey: Inter-ethnic relations in an urbanizing environment. European Sociological Review, 18(4), 417–432.
Hannerz, U. (2000). Flow, boundaries and hybrids: Keywords in transnational anthrophology (Working Paper Series WPTC-2K-02). Stockholm: Department of Social Anthropology, Stockholm University.
Hărăguş, M. (2014). The role of education in ethnically mixed marriages. In L. Dumănescu, D. Mârza, & M. Eppel (Eds.), Intermarriage throughout history (pp. 389–407). Newcaslte upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
Hărăguş, M. (2017). Considerations on ethnically mixed marriages in Transylvania in the last few decades. In I. Bolovan & L. Dumănescu (Eds.), Intermarriage in Transylvania, 1895–2010 (pp. 117–125). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Edition.
Horowitz, D. L. (1985). Ethnic groups in conflict. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Horváth, I. (2004). Az etnikailag vegyes házasságok az erdélyi magyar lakosság körében: 1992–2002. In T. Kiss (Ed.), Népesedési folyamatok az ezredfordulón Erdélyben (pp. 235–257). Kolozsvár: Kriterion and RMDSZ Ügyvezető Elnökség.
Jenkins, R. (2008). Rethinking ethnicity (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kalmijn, M. (1998). Intermarriage and homogamy: Causes, patterns, trends. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 395–421.
Kalmijn, M., de Graaf, P. M., & Janssen, J. P. G. (2005). Intermarriage and the risk of divorce in the Netherlands: The effects of differences in religion and in nationality, 1974–94. Population Studies, 59(1), 71–85.
Kalmijn, M., & Tubergen, F. V. (2010). A comparative perspective on intermarriage: Explaining differences among national-origin groups in the United States. Demography, 47(2), 459–479.
Kiss, T. (2006). Interethnic marriages and assimilation in demographic models. In B. Balogh & Z. Ilyés (Eds.), Perspectives of diaspora existence: Hungarian diasporas in the Carpathian Basin: Historical and current contexts of a specific diaspora interpretation and its aspects of ethnic minority protection (pp. 107–139). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Laitin, D. D. (1995). Marginality: A microperspective. Rationality and Society, 7(1), 31–57.
Laitin, D. D. (1996). National revival and competitive assimilation in Estonia. Post-Soviet Affairs, 12(1), 25–39.
Laitin, D. D. (1998). Identity in formation: The Russian-speaking populations in the near abroad. The Wilder House series in politics, history, and culture. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Lamont, M., Silva, G. M., Welburn, J. S., Guetzkow, J., Mizrachi, N., Herzog, H., & Reis, E. (2016). Getting respect: Responding to stigma and discrimination in the United States, Brazil, and Israel. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
László, S. (2013). Neglected peripheries: Discovering hybridity in Transylvania. Identities and identifications: Politicized uses of collective identities. Paper presented at the conference Identities and Identifications Politicized Uses of Collective Identities, 18–20 April 2013, Zagreb, Croatia.
Levchenko, P. (2013). Transnational marriages between eastern European-born wives and U.S.-born husbands. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Minnesota, Minnesota.
Livezeanu, I. (1995). Cultural politics in Greater Romania: Regionalism, nation building & ethnic struggle, 1918–1930. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Merton, R. K. (1941). Intermarriage and the social structure. Psychiatry, 4(3), 361–374.
Monden, C. W. S., & Smits, J. (2005). Ethnic intermarriage in times of social change: The case of Latvia. Demography, 42(2), 323–345.
O’Leary, R., & Finnäs, F. (2002). Education, social integration and minority-majority group intermarriage. Sociology, 36(2), 235–254.
Öllős, L. (2012, June 9). Ki a magyar? Új Szó Szalon.
Osuji, C. (2013). Confronting whitening in an era of black consciousness: Racial ideology and black-white interracial marriages in Rio de Janeiro. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 36(10), 1490–1506.
Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review, 94(2), 251–267.
Pieterse, J. N. (2001). Hybridity, so what? Theory, Culture & Society, 18(2–3), 219–245.
Pozsony, F. (2007). Szórványok hétköznapjai. In B. Balogh, B. Bodó, & Z. Ilyés (Eds.), Regionális identitás, közösségépítés, szórványgondozás (pp. 49–60). Budapest: Lucius.
Râmneamțu, P. (1937). Problema căsătoriilor mixte în oraşele din Transilvania în perioada de la 1920–1937. Buletin Eugenetic și Biopolitic.
Sheriff, R. E. (2001). Dreaming equality: Color, race, and racism in urban Brazil. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Smits, J. (2010). Ethnic intermarriage and social cohesion. What can we learn from Yugoslavia? Social Indicators Research, 96(3), 417–432.
Szilágyi, N. S. (2002). Észrevételek a romániai magyar népesség fogyásáról, különös tekintettel az asszimilációra. Magyar Kisebbség, 7(4), 64–96.
Szilágyi, N. S. (2004). Az asszimiláció és hatása a népesedési folyamatokra. In T. Kiss (Ed.), Népesedési folyamatok az ezredfordulón Erdélyben (pp. 157–235). Kolozsvár: Kriterion and RMDSZ Ügyvezető Elnökség.
Telegdi-Csetri, V. (2017). Displaying ethnicity through the practices of mixed couples from Transylvania. In I. Bolovan & L. Dumănescu (Eds.), Intermarriage in Transylvania, 1895–2010 (pp. 193–204). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Edition.
Thornton, A. (2005). Reading History Sideways: The Fallacy and Enduring Impact of the Developmental Paradigm on Family Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Turai, T. (2003). A családszerkezet változása a szocializmus éveiben a Szilágyságban. Erdélyi Társadalom, 1(1), 85–101.
Turda, M. (2010). Modernism and eugenics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Van Ham, M., & Tammaru, T. (2011). Ethnic minority-majority unions in Estonia. European Journal of Population, 27(3), 313–335.
Varga, E. Á. (1998). Fejezetek a jelenkori Erdély népesedéstörténetéből. Budapest: Püski.
Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology (2 Vols., p. 1469). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Wimmer, A. (2013). Ethnic boundary making: Institutions, power, networks. Oxford studies in culture and politics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Yagmur, K., & Ehala, M. (2011). Tradition and innovation in the Ethnolinguistic Vitality theory. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 32(2), 101–110.
Zolberg, A. R., & Woon, L. L. (1999). Why Islam is like Spanish: Cultural incorporation in Europe and the United States. Politics & Society, 27(1), 5–38.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kiss, T. (2018). Assimilation and Boundary Reinforcement: Ethnic Exogamy and Socialization in Ethnically Mixed Families. In: Kiss, T., Székely, I., Toró , T., Bárdi, N., Horváth, I. (eds) Unequal Accommodation of Minority Rights. Palgrave Politics of Identity and Citizenship Series. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78893-7_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78893-7_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-78892-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-78893-7
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)