Abstract
This chapter, analyzes the changes that occurred in the positions of the Hungarians in the system of ethnic stratification in Transylvania and Romania over the past century and outlines several processes that contribute to their increasing marginalization. The most significant transformations have taken place during state socialism, when Hungarians lost their formerly dominant position in the cities of (Northern) Transylvania. An analysis of present-day ethnic inequalities shows that nowadays Hungarians have a less-favorable position compared to the majority, being less educated, earning less, and being underrepresented among urban middle class. However, inequalities are lower within the Hungarian community, and the Hungarian–Romanian relation is unranked, as Hungarians are present in all social strata and Hungarian elites still control some important institutional channels of social mobility.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The notion of a system of ethnic stratification refers to the concept of class system used by Gerhard Lenski. Lenski elaborated a multidimensional model of stratification and argued that as far as race, ethnicity, or religion plays a significant role in the distributive process, one should consider these racial, ethnic, and religious categories as classes or status groups (Lenski 1966, p. 396).
- 2.
Even a superficial review of the literature of social stratification makes this quite evident. Ethnic inequalities seem to be problematic and had a marginal position in both paradigms dominating the research on social stratification, namely structural functionalism and Marxism. This does not mean that social scientists of Marxist inclination would not theorize ethnic inequalities in relevant ways at all. See, for instance, the theory of dual labor market by Bonacich (1972).
- 3.
World system theorists argue that Hungary (including Transylvania) became part of the emerging capitalist world system earlier, during the sixteenth or seventeenth century (Wallerstein 1974). However, I do not refer to this process but to the beginning of what is conventionally called the beginning of social modernization.
- 4.
One of the consequences of the Compromise was the unification of Transylvania with Hungary, which was opposed by both the Romanian and the Saxon elites (Pál 2010). Traditionally, Hungarians were highly overrepresented among the nobility and dominated the administration of the province (except for the 1850–1867 period, following the failed revolution of 1848). Saxons used to form an autonomous estate and were the dominant element of several urban centers of Transylvania. Romanians were highly underrepresented both among the nobility and among urban dwellers and were not considered an autonomous estate. The administrative positions of the Romanian elites were relatively strong during the period between 1850 and 1867.
- 5.
Yiddish, the historical language of Ashkenazi Jews, was classified as German.
- 6.
The census used the ethnonym of Cigány which can be translated as Gypsy.
- 7.
One should add that these figures are in some respect misleading, as the above-mentioned urban centers had a larger area of attraction or rural hinterland, also comprising territories that remained part of Hungary following the Treaty of Trianon.
- 8.
Here, the process of urbanization began late (in the 1910s) and it was practically restricted to the town of Târgu Mureș/Marosvásárhely.
- 9.
44.7% of the Hungarian speakers were able to read and write in Hungary as a whole in 1880 and 67.1% in 1910.
- 10.
In Hungary as a whole, the literacy rate among German speakers was 67 (1880) and 70.1% (1910).
- 11.
This statement of Ronnås should be nuanced, as some of the most disadvantaged agricultural laborers were actually enrolled in the system of capitalist production: They worked for latifundia. The proportion of this stratum of agricultural laborers lacking land proprieties was lower in the historical province of Transylvania compared to both Hungary and the old Romanian Kingdom.
- 12.
The proportion of those employed in the industrial sector was 21% for Hungarians and 23.4% for Germans according to the 1910 census, but only 7.6% in the case of Romanians. 14.9 of the Hungarians, 14% of the Germans, and only 3.5% of the Romanians were employed in the tertiary sector.
- 13.
- 14.
The ethnonym of Țigan which can be translated as Gypsy was used until the 2002 census.
- 15.
In Romanian, Centrul de Cercetare și Consultanță în Domeniul Culturii (CCCDC).
- 16.
Next to questions concerning cultural consumption, the questionnaire contained a relatively consistent block on social stratification. The questionnaire was elaborated by a joint CCCDC-RIRNM team composed of Liviu Chelcea, Marius Lazăr, Gergő Barna, and the author of this chapter. The nationwide representative sample consisted of 3500 respondents, to which 1200 representatively selected ethnic Hungarians were added.
- 17.
As already mentioned, the restriction on abortion was introduced in 1966 and as a consequence the 1967 birth cohort was twice as large as that of the previous year. The educational infrastructure was not properly extended to face this demographic change.
- 18.
\(I_\text{equ} = \text{Total income of the household}/{N}^{0.7}\). See Kapitány and Spéder (2004, p. 15) on this issue.
- 19.
According to the National Institute of Statistics, the average per capita income (not the equivalized one!) of the Romanian households was of 795 RON in January 2011.
- 20.
B is the unstandardized regression coefficient. It shows the effect of a one unit change of the independent variable over the per capita income (expressed in the unit of the dependent variable, in our case the absolute amount of Romanian currency).
- 21.
This is due to the precarious situation of divorced and widowed women, especially those raising minor-aged children.
- 22.
See Kapitány and Spéder (2004, pp. 15–16) for a similar definition.
- 23.
Biró (1998) argued that one indicator of the high prestige of the public intelligentsia was that in 1990 they gained a central role in establishing the Hungarian ethno-national movement and quickly occupied the ranks of the newly founded ethnic party. It was a later phase when elites engaged in public administration and economic activities gained ground.
- 24.
Kiss (2004) emphasized the status loss of the teachers in villages. This stratum used to be the most honorable during the 1980s.
- 25.
This way I aggregated the occupation of husbands and wives and the resulting crosstab became symmetric by rows and columns.
- 26.
It should be emphasized that the CCCDC-RIRNM survey asked the question concerning occupation not only from those who were employed but (referring to the last occupation of the respondent) also from pensioners and the unemployed. For those who had never worked (15.1% of the Hungarian and 13.7% of the national sample), it is obviously impossible to define occupational status.
- 27.
This aspect will be discussed in detail in Chapter 12.
References
Achim, V. (2004). The Roma in Romanian history. Budapest and New York: Central European University Press.
Arel, D. (2002). Language categories: Backward or forward looking. In D. I. Kertzer & D. Arel (Eds.), Census and identity: The politics of race, ethnicity, and language in national census (pp. 92–121). Cambridge, UK and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Badis, R. (2008). A vajdasági magyar népesség társadalomszerkezete két népszámlálás tükrében. Regio, 19(4), 102–154.
Berevoiescu, I. (2002). O analiză demografică a populației de romi: familie și fertilitate. In C. Zamfir & M. Preda (Eds.), Romii în România (pp. 39–72). București: Expert.
Biró, Z. A. (1998). Intézményesedési folyamatok a romániai magyarság körében. In Z. A. Biró (Ed.), Stratégia vagy kényszerpályák? Tanulmányok a romániai magyar társadalomról (pp. 16–47). Csíkszereda: Pro-Print.
Bonacich, E. (1972). A theory of ethnic antagonism: The split labor market. American Sociological Review, 37(5), 547.
Brubaker, R. (2009). National homogenization and ethnic reproduction on the European periphery. In M. Barbagli & H. Ferguson (Eds.), La teoria sociologica e lo stato moderno: saggi in onore di Gianfranco Poggi (pp. 201–221). Bologna: Il mulino.
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.
Chan, T. W., & Goldthorpe, J. (2004). Is there a status order in contemporary British society? Evidence from the occupational structure of friendship. European Sociological Review, 20(5), 383–401.
Chan, T. W., & Goldthorpe, J. (2010). Social status and cultural consumption. Cambridge, UK and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Csepeli, G., Székely, M., & Örkény, A. (2002). Nemzetek egymás tükrében. Interetnikus viszonyok a Kárpát-medencében. Budapest: Balassi.
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.
Ghețău, V. (1996). O proiectare condiţională a populaţiei României pe principale naţionalităţi (1992–2025). Revista de Cercetări Sociale, 3(1), 77–105.
Gödri, I. (2004). A magyarországra bevándorolt népesség jellemzői, különös tekintettel a Romániából bevándorlókra. In T. Kiss (Ed.), Népesedési folyamatok az ezredfordulón Erdélyben (pp. 126–147). Kolozsvár: Kriterion - RMDSZ Ügyvezető Elnökség.
Gödri, I., & Tóth, P. P. (2005). Bevándorlás és beilleszkedés. Budapest: KSH Népességkutató Intézet.
Gyurgyík, L. (2004). A szlovákiai magyarság társadalmi szerkezetének alakulása 1980–2001 között. Korall, 18, 155–176.
Gyurgyík, L. (2008). A szlovákiai magyarok társadalomszerkezete a 90-es években. Regio, 19(4), 77–102.
Horowitz, D. L. (1985). Ethnic groups in conflict. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Horváth, I. (2005). Erdély és Magyarország közötti migrációs folyamatok. Kolozsvár: Scientia.
Horváth, I., & Kiss, T. (2017). Ancheta experților locali privind situația romilor pe unități administrativ-teritoriale. In I. Horváth (Ed.), Raport de cercetare – SocioRoMap. O cartografiere a comunităţilor de romi din România (pp. 9–190). Cluj-Napoca: Editura Institutului pentru Studierea Problemelor Minorităţilor Naţionale.
Hunya, G. (1990). Románia területi fejlődése és gazdaságpolitikája. In G. Hunya, T. Réti, A. R. Süle, & L. Tóth (Eds.), Románia 1944–1990. Gazdaság és politikatörténet (pp. 159–181). Budapest: Atlantisz and Medvetánc.
Kapitány, B., & Spéder, Z. (2004). Szegénység és depriváció. Társadalmi összefüggések nyomában. KSH-NKI, Műhelytanulmányok, 4.
Karády, V. (2000). Magyar kultúrfölény vagy etnokrata önámítás? Mire jók a dualista kor nemzetiségi statisztikái? Educatio, 9(2), 239–252.
Kideckel, D. A. (2008). Getting by in postsocialist Romania: Labor, the body, & working-class culture. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Kiss, D. (2004). A falusi elit átalakulása. WEB, 12, 9–15.
Kligman, G., & Verdery, K. (2011). Peasants under siege: The collectivization of Romanian agriculture, 1949–1962. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Köpeczi, B., Miskolczy, A., & Szász, Z. (1986). Erdély története. Harmadik kötet. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Ladányi, J., & Szelényi, I. (2006). Patterns of exclusion: Constructing Gypsy ethnicity and the making of an underclass in transitional societies of Europe. New York: Columbia University Press.
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.
László, M., & Novák, C. Z. (2012). A szabadság terhe. Marosvásárhely, 1990, március, 16–21. Csíkszereda: Pro-Print.
Laumann, E. O., & Guttman, L. (1966). The relative associational contiguity of occupations in an urban setting. American Sociological Review, 31(2), 169.
Lenski, G. E. (1966). Power and privilege: A theory of social stratification. McGraw-Hill series in sociology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Livezeanu, I. (1995). Cultural politics in greater Romania: Regionalism, nation building & ethnic struggle, 1918–1930. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Mușat, R. (2011). Lamenting social change in the countryside: The publications of the Bucharest School of Sociology in the early 1930s. ACUM, 5(1). http://www.cooperativag.ro/lamenting-social-change-countryside-publications-bucharest-school-sociology-early-1930s/.
O’Leary, R., & Finnäs, F. (2002). Education, social integration and minority–majority group intermarriage. Sociology, 36(2), 235–254.
Pál, J. (2010). Unió vagy “unificáltatás”?: Erdély uniója és a királyi biztos működése (1867–1872). Kolozsvár: Erdélyi Múzeum-Egyesület.
Poledna, R. (2001). Transformări sociale la saşii ardeleni după 1945. Cluj-Napoca: Presa Universitară Clujeană.
Precupețu, I. (2013). Inequality trends in Romania. Calitatea Vieții, 23(3), 249–276.
Regényi, E., & Törzsök, E. (1988). Romániai menekültek Magyarországon 1988. In Medvetánc. Jelentések a határokon túli magyar kisebbségek helyzetéről. Csehszlovákia, Szovjetunió, Románia, Jugoszlávia (pp. 187–241). Budapest: Elite.
Ronnås, P. (1984). Urbanization in Romania: A geography of social and economic change since independence. Ph.D., Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm, Sweden.
Sik, E. (1994). Traktatus a vállalkozó szerepének de-misztifikálásáról. Replika, 15–16, pp. 7–12.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000). Nyelv, oktatás, kisebbségek. In K. Csernusné Otutay & É. Forintos (Eds.), Nyelvi jogok (pp. 41–68). Veszprém: Veszprémi Egyetemi Kiadó.
Tompea, A., & Năstuță, S. (2009). Romania. In H. Fassmann, U. Reeger, & W. Sievers (Eds.), Statistics and reality: Concepts and measurements of migration in Europe (pp. 217–230). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Turda, M. (2010). Modernism and eugenics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wallerstein, I. M. (1974). The modern world-system, vol. I: Capitalist agriculture and the origins of the European world-economy in the sixteenth century. Studies in social discontinuity. New York: Academic Press.
Wimmer, A. (2002). Nationalist exclusion and ethnic conflict: Shadows of modernity. Cambridge, UK and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Zamfir, C., & Zamfir, E. (Eds.). (1993). Ţiganii între ignorare şi îngrijorare. Bucureşti: Alternative.
Zavisca, J. (2005). The status of cultural omnivorism: A case study of reading in Russia. Social Forces, 84(2), 1233–1255.
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). A Changing System of Ethnic Stratification: The Social Positions of Transylvanian Hungarians. 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_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78893-7_11
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)