Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Introduction
“Czech society”, or, more precisely, society located in the territory currently
governed by the Czech state, is multiethnic, multireligious and multilingual in
its character. This is a result not (only) of contemporary social processes like
globalisation and trans-regional migration, but also, from a historical point
of view, of the ethnic composition of local inhabitants in Czech towns and
villages which was always diverse, in spite of the many nationalist movements
and dramatic historical changes in the last century. For example, although a
significant part of local Jewish and Roma populations was forced into exile
or exterminated by the Nazi regime during the Second World War, and
a vast majority of German population was displaced from the territory of
the re-established Czechoslovakia in the immediate post-war period, Czech
society did not lose its multiethnic character completely.
In contemporary Czech society there are a number of discourses and
institutions that claim to represent different ethnic collectivities. Official
government statistics (e.g. censuses) highlight the large number of non-
Czech nationals living within the Czech Republic. Quite significantly, a
Governmental Council for National Minorities (Rada vlády pro národnostní
menšiny) was established in order to deal with issues related to ethnic
minority groups in Czech society. There are several civic associations that
cultivate and preserve their members’ ethnic identity such as the Hungarian
and Bulgarian clubs (for a list of institutions and civil associations related
to ethnic minorities living in Czech society see appendix). There are many
newspapers and journals published in languages other than Czech, e.g.
Slovak Listy or Russian Russkaja Čechija (for a list of periodicals related to
ethnic minorities living in Czech society see appendix). There are stores
with books, music and food such as Russian Ruský salón in Prague and
246 Csaba Szaló and Eleonóra Hamar
1 The social reality of these institutions and discourses is a more relevant indicator
of ethnic diversity than official statistics about the size of ethnically categorised
populations. Under social conditions of globalisation it is not useful to conceive
society as a population of permanently settled citizens. When we speak about Czech
society, we have to take account also of foreigners with a long-term residence,
illegal and semi-legal foreigners as well as short time visitors like tourists. Semi-
legal workers and short-term visitors as individuals may only spend days or months
“in the society,” nevertheless, as a social force, as a cultural phenomenon and an
economic input they form a permanent part of local institutions and discourses.
THE FORMATION OF ETHNIC MINORITY IDENTITIES AND THEIR... 247
who were unaware of the presence of other “ethnic minorities” than the
Roma living alongside “the majority society” in Brno. The exhibition was
explicitly built on the assumption that the knowledge of a shared past and
the recognition of the present ethnic diversity will improve “the coexistence
of the majority society with ethnic minorities.”
Several aspects of this event are of particular importance for the
construction of ethnic identities. Firstly, it is the manner of classification
which rules the discourse of the event. In other words, it is the way in which
multicultural diversity is mapped. The exhibition apparently represented
and celebrated Brno cultural diversity by focusing on ethnic and religious
minorities living in the city. However, the assumption that the exhibition
was articulated in a discourse that conceives of multicultural society in terms
of ethnic and religious diversity is mistaken. The notion of multicultural
society, as it is expressed in the exhibition’s discourse, does not have a dual
(i.e. multiethnic and multireligious) character. Even if social identities are
conceived both in ethnic and religious forms3, it is ethnic identities that are
represented as constitutive of cultural diversity. The significance of religious
identities seems derived from their role in the reproduction of ethnic
identities. Both the Islamic Foundation and the Russian Orthodox Church
were included in the exhibition because they play a major role in some
ethnic minorities’ culture. The exhibition discourse represents cultural
diversity as if it was essentially ethnic diversity. This assumption clarifies why
other churches and religious movements were missing from the exhibition
and why they were unthinkable within this discourse as components of
multicultural society. The exhibition’s discourse rules out the possibility to
situate the historically dominant churches in the same semantic field with
ethnic minority institutions.
Along with the historically dominant churches there were other subjects
whose absence was symptomatic. The Czechs and Moravians apparently
were not incorporated into the field of cultural diversity. They had no
panels in the exhibition; still, these ethnic identities were present under
the pseudonym of “the majority society” (used by the organisers in the
exhibition catalogue, on the festival website etc.). This pseudonym enables
the symbolic displacement – similarly as in the case of dominant religious
identities – of dominant ethnic identities from the semantic field in which
identities of the ethnic Others are located. This symbolic repositioning
reveals the second aspect of the discursive construction of identities – the
specific mode of symbolic domination. In other words, it discloses how the
field of multicultural diversity is hierarchically structured.
3 Sexual or other sub-cultural forms of social identity are clearly excluded from this
discourse of multicultural diversity.
THE FORMATION OF ETHNIC MINORITY IDENTITIES AND THEIR... 249
the fan discourse, as far as other than national identities, for example
religious identities like Catholicism, were treated as irrelevant. The sense
of ethnicity is present also in a seemingly harmless statement “the Jews
remember Holocaust victims on this day.” This statement demonstrates the
exclusionary character of ethnic classification since its logic of “othering”
lies in the presumption that to mourn and remember the Holocaust are
ethnically specifiable acts, and, what more, they should be treated as such.
To mourn on the Holocaust Remembrance Day out of a shared “sense of
humanity” or a “sense of fellow citizenship” is inconceivable according to
the ethnic discourse.6
As the above-mentioned examples indicate, the sense of ethnicity can
be conceived as a part of doxic experience that treats the experienced
state and division of the world as necessary, or, in other words, as natural
(Bourdieu, Wacquant 1992). Doxic experience not only represents but
also constitutes the world we live in through everyday discourse. Two
general, closely related points should be made here. Firstly, it is necessary
to emphasise that social actors’ practical knowledge cannot be reduced to a
mere reflection of social reality. The sense of ethnicity is not only a product
of the recognition that there are ethnic collectivities in the real world,
rather the practical knowledge is constitutive of the social reality of ethnic
identities. As all forms of knowledge, practical knowledge of ethnicity is also
an act of interpretation (or an act of the construction of meaning) using
“schemes of thought and expression” (i.e. language) for responding to the
challenges of the social world. This process is not thinkable without actors’
constitutive activity. It means that social actors do not react mechanically
to their conditions of existence; they respond actively by means of their
practical structuring activity. It is then essential to reflect how the knowledge
of ethnicity contributes to the social reality of ethnic identities.
This leads us to our second point. The knowledge of ethnicity this paper
explores is not a theoretical form of knowledge, but a practical one. It means
that the knowledge of ethnicity cannot be reduced to theoretical thinking
using systematic forms and categories, precisely because the sense of ethnicity
is oriented towards practice. It is not produced for the sake of a pure and
truthful representation of reality; the criteria of this practical knowledge are
not its internal coherence or truthfulness in relation to the objective world.
Rather, its criteria of relevance are to be found in its practical usefulness.
To put it differently, the sense of ethnicity is present not only in people’s
minds but also in their acts – it is embodied in practices which produce
both (further) knowledge and institutions. As an internalised scheme of
thought and expression the sense of ethnicity is played out continually in
6 All these examples from field notes were collected in the Czech Republic over the
last two years, but according to our comparative observations, they could easily
illustrate the situation in Central European societies in general.
252 Csaba Szaló and Eleonóra Hamar
certain judgements about what is likely and what is unlikely. When we claim
that the sense of ethnicity is not merely a sense of difference but a sense
of distinction we point to the hierarchical structure of the field of ethnic
identities. Some positions in this field are horizontal but others are ordered
hierarchically. Some ethnic identities are treated as equal to “our” ethnic
identity but others are treated as qualitatively distinct. As we showed in the
introductory analysis of the MIP exhibition, the qualitative distinction can
assume various forms in various discourses: it can be a distinction between
minorities and the majority society, between nations and ethnic groups, or
between historically well developed and less developed nations. The core
(usually our) ethnic identity is not automatically to be found at the top
of the hierarchy. For instance, Central European national identities are
marked by the syndrome of small nations which are not, in their modernist
narratives, conceived as positioned at the top of the hierarchy but as slowly
moving upward to this position.11 From this presumption it is just a step to a
practical assumption that both the existence and the hierarchical distinction
of ethnic collectivities are natural/necessary. Thus everyone has his/her
proper place in the field of ethnicity which is hierarchically ordered.
In summary, the sense of ethnicity, as an instrument of social orientation,
operates through practical knowledge of ethnic differences and ethnic
distinctions. Therefore a person with an ordinary sense of ethnicity will be
competent to recognise other people’s ethnic identity, and will be able to form
judgements about ethnic attributes of persons and objects. In other words,
the practical knowledge of the ethnic field consists in the competence to
regard certain attributes of persons and objects as ethnically relevant. These
judgements can be regarded as modes of stigmatisation. If we understand
how stigmatisation works we can easily understand the working of the sense
of ethnicity, too. Stigmatisation is a practice of classification built around a
core feature (stigma), which is treated as essential for the identity of a given
person and their envisaged future behaviour (Goffman 1986). The practice
of stigmatisation isolates a specific attribute from all other attributes which
are classified as unimportant or even remain unrecognised. Similarly, the
sense of ethnicity identifies persons as members of an ethnic collectivity on
the basis of certain attributes. The recognition of ethnic attributes is always
based on an interpretative selection from a huge set of potentially available
attributes. Behind this selective classification lies a shared knowledge that
can be revealed through a phenomenon termed by Bourdieu (1984) the
pertinence principle. It can be observed, for example, in discursive events
in which listeners spontaneously affirm the relevance of the labelling
12 The authors studied the processes of ethnic identity formation on the basis of
a narrative analysis of autobiographical interviews with second generation Jews
who currently live in the Czech Republic and Hungary (Hamar 2002a; Hamar
2002b) and qualitative interviews focused on cultural assimilation practices of
Hungarians and Roma living in the Czech and Slovak Republics (Szaló 2002;
Szaló 2004).
13 On the conceptualisation of the difference between self-identity and personal
identity see Goffman (1986).
14 On the sociology of social identity formation, especially on the discursive
formation of ethnic identities see Szaló (2003a, 2003b) and Hamar (2003).
THE FORMATION OF ETHNIC MINORITY IDENTITIES AND THEIR... 255
However, it is not only the ethnic identity of the Other that can be
ambivalent. A sense of ambiguity can be found in self-identity narratives
when a person either unexpectedly discovers her/his dual descent line,
or tries to resolve the dilemma of her/his authentic ethnic belonging. A
change of the family name is a good example of a possibility to gain a new
ethnic identity through cultural assimilation and be adopted into a new
ethnic collectivity in Central Europe. Nevertheless, for the second or third
generation assimilates, authentic ethnic origin is in many cases a matter for
an inquiry. Also these cases show that institutions and discourses (here in
the form of expert knowledge or nostalgic narratives circulating in ethnic
groups) can greatly facilitate coping with a potential identity crisis.16 From
the sociological perspective, it is crucial how these forms of knowledge and
the institutions that help to settle identity-related dilemmas are constituted.
Therefore we have to turn our attention to institutional structures of
modernity, more precisely to the modern strategy of national unification.
The strategy of national unification plays a crucial role in the cultivation
of the particular ethnic identities as well as of the general sense of ethnicity
in Central Europe. This strategy not only played an important role in the
past, it is of analogous importance today, too. The sociological discourse
acknowledges the creative role that local national movements of the 19th and
early 20th century played in the constitution of national identities in Central
Europe – national identities were invented by the nationalist movements as
ethnic identities. Besides the formative phase of invention, also the phase of
identity reproduction has to be acknowledged. To focus on the reproductive
phase of the national unification strategy means to concentrate on the
institutions and discourses which cultivate, replicate and preserve these
national identities in the form of ethnic identities – that is to study how the
strategy of national unification constitutes the field of ethnicity. It is evident
that apart from national movements, these institutions and discourses also
include institutions and discourses governed by the state and controlled by
commercial markets.
One of the key components of the strategy of national unification is the
linguistic and cultural unification of society. Against local dialects, cultures
and identities it is the primacy of national language, culture and identity
that is promoted. This strategy subordinates traditional local cultures
and identities by reinterpreting them. Local cultures and identities are
mythologised as authentic sources of culture and moved into the past as
exotised folklore. They are treated as signs of authenticity that have to be
preserved as museum exhibits, rather than cultivated as an appropriate
basis for modern national development. It is not only linguistic unification
but even the whole of cultural unification that are subject to normalisation.
National institutions and discourses are promoted and established both in
have only indirect experience of it? What interest may these persons have
in this institution?
Accordingly, the sense of ethnicity – to apply Bourdieu’s wordplay – as a
selective attribution of ethnic attributes, is inseparable from material and
ideological interests. The reason why some attributes are interesting for us is
never completely independent of our interests in observing these attributes
as relevant (Bourdieu 1984). More precisely, it does not mean that particular
persons necessarily have to gain personal advantages from recognising some
of other persons’ specific attributes. Rather, these interests are articulated in
discursive structures of taxonomic differences and hierarchical distinctions
which are inherent in structural positions in a particular social field. In our
example, these interests are related to structural positions in the field of
ethnicity. Minority ethnic identities can be defined by their subordinated
structural position in the field of ethnicity. The sense of ethnicity which
treats some collectivities as minorities is articulated from the perspective of
dominant positions. However, this dominant perspective is not necessarily
unchallenged. Social identities are not only the moving forces behind social
struggles, their definition and representation is also an instrument of social
struggle (Bourdieu 1992). Moreover, this classificatory struggle is not only a
struggle of the dominant against the subordinated – who are usually regarded
as powerless –; it also includes tricks and practices of resistance on the part
of the subordinated. The practices of ethnic identity formation are thus
interrelated with the ideological and material interests of all participants in
the field of ethnicity. More precisely, the practical knowledge of ethnicity is
constituted in line with the structural positions of its bearers. The question
thus emerges: whose interest is it to represent these collectivities as ethnic
minorities?
Another interesting feature of the institution of Roma advisors and
assistants consists in its potential to transgress the dominant sense of
ethnicity which treats the Roma as a homogenous collectivity. This
presumption of homogeneity is not addressed openly at a discursive
level, rather it is transgressed by the institutional practice of privileging
local people in holding the position of Roma advisors and assistants.
This institutional practice can, in this case, face the local ethnic diversity
of communities officially classified by the umbrella term: Roma. For
this practice, it is more important to guarantee the performance of the
institution using local tactics than to challenge the homogenising discourse
by employing a reform strategy. This homogenisation of differences and
distinctions is a core feature of the sense of ethnicity working both in
official institutions and in the life world. Some differences and distinctions
– such as those between Vlach Roma and Rumungre – are interpreted as
internal to the collectivity and thus as unimportant. Local minority cultures
can constitute their own sense of ethnicity as different from the officially
institutionalised one. Their practical knowledge of ethnic identities can
260 Csaba Szaló and Eleonóra Hamar
stress differences and distinctions that are perceived as irrelevant from the
dominant perspective.20
The focus on group boundaries, the ignorance of internal divisions and the
stress on external differences which characterise homogenising classifications
are not necessarily instruments of exclusion. This homogenising effect cannot
be restricted to ethnic classifications since discourses forming citizenship
identities provide this homogenising practice by claiming equal rights for
persons belonging to the political community. The inclusion of citizens into
the political community depends on the ignorance of particular internal
divisions among those to be included. Similarly, the sense of ethnicity can
constitute exclusions and inclusions at the same time.
From a sociological perspective, we need to point out the symbolic
power of that particular form of the sense of ethnicity that conceives ethnic
collectivities as biologically or genetically grounded. The ideology of pure
ethnic descent may be false from the scientific point of view, nevertheless, it
has real social effects. The practical effect of this ideology is to deny choice
and free will regarding ethnic identity. The sense of ethnicity based on the
practical knowledge of ethnic purity – even if it is a myth – can contribute to
what the ideology of pure ethnic descent claims there exists, that is ethnically
closed communities. This can be done, for example, through marriage
preferences and through influencing children’s marriage choices. To put it
differently, the assumed reality of ethnic descent is in fact a utopia of a pure
ethnic community. It is something that ideological discourse discovers and
identifies in the past as an authentic value, but, in fact, it is a normative vision
that has to be realised in the future. The trick of ideology is the following:
the description of the past is in fact a prescription for the future. However,
it is important to stress that this utopian ideology of pure ethnic descent is
present both in the dominant and minority ethnic discourses.
The field of ethnic identities in Central Europe is structured by
judgements about who looks and/or speaks differently or has a different
ethnic origin. From the perspective of minority cultures´ social inclusion it
is crucial to what extent these ethnic attributes are recognised and treated
as significant, more precisely to what extent and in what contexts these
attributes are treated merely as significant signs of ethnic differences or
rather as distinctions.21 The sense of ethnicity will probably be always present
in Central European societies, however, there is still a theoretical possibility
that ethnic identity of others is recognised, yet ignored. This is made possible
by the existence of such social interactions that establish solidarity among
actors having differing ethnic identities, for instance on the basis of shared
faith in the possibility of creating a godly and virtuous earthly existence, or
in the existence of good and evil spirits in everydayness. It can also be on
the basis of shared hatred for those who do not abide by the word they have
given or for foreign invaders, on the basis of shared belief in the value of
individual freedom or family life, shared passion for certain sports or sports
clubs etc. In other words there are other senses of difference and distinction
in society which constitute other than ethnic forms of social identities. There
are institutions and discourses in which ethnic distinctions are overwritten
by social identities grounded in nation, religion, gender, family, kinship,
region, occupation, education, political ideology and honour. Nevertheless,
the question remains whether the dominant institutions and discourses will
privilege the sense of ethnicity over other social identities.
The practices of social inclusion are double-faced. On the one hand,
they lead to institutional integration of ethnic minorities. At the same
time, though, they lead to the minorities’ symbolic exclusion from the
Czech national identity. Discourses in which Czech citizens with the Roma
or Polish ethnic identity are not treated as Czechs exclude the possibility
of a dual Czech-Roma or Czech-Polish identity. Certainly, this is the case
only if the Czech national identity is conceived purely as an ethnic identity.
The formation of minority and dominant identities are inseparable, they
are constituted in the same discursive and institutional field. The sense
of ethnicity dominating Czech society until recently, has led to an ethnic
delimitation of the Czech national identity. That is to say, it apprehends
minorities as ethnic collectivities and conceives the cultural diversity of
Czech society in the form of ethnic diversity. This form of social inclusion
has an unintended consequence: by treating the Czech national identity as
a dominant ethnic identity, all other – that is minority ethnic – identities
are excluded from the imagined community of the Czech nation. From the
perspective of social inclusion, the most important question is whether the
dual – ethnic and political – character of the Czech national identity will
be indicated in discourses of symbolic power. In other words, the question
is whether official discourses and institutions are able to articulate the
difference between: “Czech nationality” conceived as an ethnic identity and
“Czech citizenship” conceived as a political identity.22 The latent symbolic
exclusion of non-ethnic Czechs from the Czech nation – in this case
References
Alexander, J. C. 1988. “Core Solidarity, Ethnic Outgroup, and Social Differentiation”
In Action and Its Environment. Toward a New Synthesis. New York: Columbia University
Press, pp. 78-106.
Anderson, B. 1991. Imagined Communities. London: Verso.
Bauman, Z. 1991. Modernity and Ambivalence. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Berger, P. L., Luckmann, T. 1967. The Social Construction of Reality. Harmondsworth:
Penguin.
Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction. A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu, P. 1990. The Logic of Practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. 1992. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P., Wacquant, L. J. D. 1992. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
Bourdieu, P. 1998. Practical Reason. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Brubaker, R. 1992. Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Brubaker, R. 1996. Nationalism Reframed. Nationhood and the National Question in the
New Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eriksen, T. H. 2002. Ethnicity and Nationalism. London: Pluto Press.
Erős, F., Kovács, A. and Lévai, K. 1985. “Hogyan jöttem rá, hogy zsidó vagyok?”
Medvetánc 2 (3): 129-144.
Geertz, C. 1973. “The Integrative Revolution: Primordial Sentiments and Civic
Politics in the New States” In Geertz, C. (ed) The Interpretation of Cultures. London:
Fontana, pp. 255-310.
Giddens, A. 1991. Modernity and Self-Identity. Self and Society in the Late Modern Age.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Goffman, E. 1967. Interaction Ritual. New York: Pantheon.
Goffman, E. 1986. Stigma. New York: Touchstone.
Hamar, E. 2002a. “Nalézání a vynalézání sebe v příběhu: o narativní konstrukci
židovských identit”. Biograf 27 (1): 29-49.
Hamar, E. 2002b. “O etnicitě a konstrukci židovských identit v životních příbězích”
In Sirovátka, T. (ed) Menšiny a marginalizované skupiny v České republice. Brno:
Masarykova univerzita, pp. 197-210.
Hamar, E. 2003. “Židovské identity ve světle diskursivních změn” In Sociální Studia 9 –
Sociální inkluze. Brno: Masarykova Universita, Fakulta Sociálních Studií, pp. 107-120.
Laitin, D. 1998. Identity in Formation. The Russian-Speaking Populations in the Near
Abroad. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
THE FORMATION OF ETHNIC MINORITY IDENTITIES AND THEIR... 263
Schulze, H. 2003. Stát a národ v Evropských dějinách. (Staat und nation in der
europäischen Geschichte.) Praha: Lidové noviny.
Schutz, A., Luckmann, T. 1973. The Structures of the Life-World. Evanston: Northwestern
University Press.
Sirovátka, T., Hamar, E. 2001. “Romští asistenti a romští poradci: krok k řešení
problémů romské komunity”. (Roma Assistants and Roma Advisors: A Step Towards
Solving the Problems of the Roma community.) Sociální politika 27 (5): 14-15.
Szaló, C. 2002. “Proces kulturní asimilace a konstrukce identity ‘přistěhovalců’”
(The Process of Cultural Assimilation and Identity Construction of ‘Immigrants’)
In Sirovátka, T. (ed) Menšiny a marginalizované skupiny v České republice. Brno:
Masarykova universita, pp. 179-196.
Szaló, C. 2003a. “Sociologie formování sociálních identit” (The Sociology of Social
Identity Formation) In Szaĺó, C., Nosál, I. (eds) Mozaika v re-konstrukci. Brno:
MPU, pp. 13-36.
Szaló, C. 2003b. “Etno-nostalgie versus modernita: konstrukce sociální identity
menšinového maďarství” (Ethno-Nostalgia versus Modernity: Social Identity
Construction of Minority Hungarians) In Szaĺó, C., Nosál, I. (eds) Mozaika v re-
konstrukci. Brno: MPU, pp. 214-234.
Szaló, C. 2004. “Svádění ke kulturní asimilaci a resistence vůči ní: o dynamice
sociální inkluze maďarské menšiny jižního Slovenska.” (The seduction of cultural
assimilation and the resistance against it: On the dynamics of social inclusion
of the Hungarian minority in Southern Slovakia.) In Sirovátka, T. (ed) Sociální
exkluze a sociální inkluze menšin a marginalizovaných skupin. Brno: Masarykova
univesita, pp. 217-234.
Verdery, K. 1996. What Was Socialism and What Comes Next. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Appendix:
Institutions and civil associations related to ethnic minorities living in Czech
society:
Armenian: Armenský dům (Mladá Boleslav).
Bulgarian: Bulharská kulturně osvětová organizace Sv. Cyrila a Metoděje (Praha),
Hyshove (Praha), Sdružení pro Bulharsko (Brno), Bulharské kulturně osvětové
sdružení (Brno), Zaedno (Praha), Vazraždane (Praha).
Belorussian: Osvětový a vzdělávací spolek Skaryna (Praha), Svaz Bělorusů v zahraničí
(Praha).
Chinese: Krajanské sdružení Číňanů žijících v ČR (Praha).
Croatian: Sdružení občanů chorvatské národnosti (Grygov).
English speakers/American: Expats (Praha).
German: Kulturní sdružení občanů německé národnosti v ČR (Brno), Německé
kulturní sdružení, region Brno (Brno)., Německý jazykový a kulturní spolek
Brno DSKV (Brno), Kulturní združení občanů německé národnosti (Praha),
Organizace Němců v západních Čechách (Plzeň), Shromáždění Němců v
Čechách, na Moravě a ve Slezku (Praha), Svaz Němců, regionální skupina
264 Csaba Szaló and Eleonóra Hamar