Serbs in Hungary: Selfidentification

Abstract

Internicitate in Europa centrala si de Est. Arad, 2002, 144-150

The Serbian community in Hungary, one of the thirteen State-recognized national minorities, is nowadays a very innumerous group; its number is estimated about 5000 (at the population census about 3000), not living at the compact territory. Though small in number, this community is not today an "ethnographic monument" but an interesting and dynamical group. One of the questions arising immediately with the researcher in such a case is the question of maintenance of particular ethnic identity.

My intention is to present in this paper some observations and results of the research which I had conducted in 1996 and 1997, among the Serbs now living in Budapest and some surrounding places (Pomaz, Budakalas, Sentendre). The result regard primarily the ways of conceptualization of ethnic identity by the very members of the group as well as some problems of a double identity and the feeling of connection with the Hungarian State whose citizens the Serbs are.

The first question that I considered as important was the issue of selfdeterming of the the very members of the community. The Serbs in Hungary with whom I talked often stressed that they considered themselves both as an integral part of the Serbian people, and as loyal citizens of Hungary. Due to the long-standing of their presence, which can be historically documented, the members of this community consider themselves a historic, almost autochthonous minority. On the other hand, the Great Migration in 1690, had left such a deep trace in collective memory, that Serbs even now identify themselves as migrants, or descendents of those migrants, though this migration was neither the first nor the unique, in the course of long lasting migrations of the Serbs in the Danube area. (The existence of Serbian diaspora in Hungary in the result of historical circumstances – the migrations to the North, due to the Turkish conquests of the Balkans).

At the direct question how they declare themselves about their feeling of belonging, the majority of my collocutors declared as the Serbs, and that number dominetes to a great extent all other possible replies (the Serb from Hungary, the Serb and the Hungarian, the Hungarian). This witnesses a high conscience of the Serbs in Hungary about their feeling of belonging to the Serbian people as an integral whole.

In order for the conscience of the ethnic identity to remain during a long period of time, it must be linked to a number of cultural elements that in corresponding contexts take the role of symbols of ethnic differentiation. This is why my second question was-which cultural elements are the key symbols of identity in case of this group? I singled out: the knowledge and the use of the Serbian mother tongue, the Orthodox religion and its rituals and holidays, participation in social life of the community, giving and use of the Serbian first name and familiarity with folk dancing and music. The ideal model of the Serb would imply an emotional connection with each of these symbols, as well as the demonstration of each of them, but this ideal mode is not always possible. It is more and more rare, primarily due to a large increase of the number of mixed marriages and to some other reasons too. That is why the third question that I posed out was: how, in the community itself, a real, not ideal criterion is established between "us" and "them", or as the Serbs in Hungary usually say-between the "conscious", "genuine" Serbs, those who "still hold", and the "Hungarian-like" "Magyarons", those who "let them be", i.e. allowed to be assimilated.

To the questions-what is the indispensable criterion for man or woman to be, determined as the Serb, is it primarily his or her conscience,i.e. the personal wish and conviction to belong to a group (a subjective criterion), or the origin from the parents-the Serbs (the objective criterion which cannot be changed), or cultural patterns which are simultaneously the symbols of identity, such as the Orthodox religion or the use of the Serbian language in the communication (also an objective criterion but which is possible

to reach or change through a personal choice), I got the replies in the following order:

As the most important criterion the subjects stressed their own conviction about the belonging to the group, i.e. the stand that the belonging to the ethnic group represents the personal choice of an individual.
Then come the identity symbols (the objective criterion, allowing the freedom of choice) – precisely, the Orthodox religion and the Serbian language; my collocutors were undecided – which criterion out of these two is more import.
The least important criterion is the objective differentiation by origin, which can not be altered. In keeping with this, the descendants from the mixed marriages are accepted as full members of the community if they themselves feel as such and declare themselves so.

Though still, especially among old members of the Serbian community there are those who consider that the Serb is a person of Serbian blood, the priority of self-consciousness and the personal choice dominate over the objective origin. It extends to the fact that the full membership is recognized even to those men and women who are not at all of the Serbian origin, but are, for example, baptized in Orthodox church, or learned how to speak the Serbian language, who take part in the life of the community and declare themselves as the Serbs. Naturally, prior to the recognition of their choice, there is a period of temptation and proving to see how serious they are in their intentions. It is especially important to them to show that they bring up their children as Serbs and do something beneficial for the community, to be active in the social life. The reason for such openness of this community is to be found in its small number.

Despite considerable openness and flexibility of the community regarding who can be its member, my collocutors in majority refused the possibility of the existence of double identity, especially those from older generation. The boundary between "us" and "them" cannot go within an individual. According to this notion, a person is either the Serb, or the Hungarian. If a person were of double origin, according to this concept, he or she should respect both sides, but emotionally can be linked only to one, i.e. he or she must opt. If he or she cannot decide, than such a person was described by my collocutors as "confused" or "a pitiful case". So it could be sad that according to this concept a double origin is a kind of danger for community. However, the double or multiple cultural competence (bilinguism, familiarity with two or more cultures...), is always highly valued. Thus it is interesting that the double or multiple cultural competence is appreciated as a quality, under condition that the individual distinguishes strictly "his own" from "foreign" (the criterion is an emotional connection), even when, for example, they use "foreign" cultural patterns more easily and successfully than "their own".

As one of the members of the community said - "I am not feeling subordinated to a Hungarian. Moreover, I feel higher than many, due to the familiarity with two cultures and two languages" (m, 1924, Budakalasz).

Two different understanding of this issue, however, starts appearing ia the present young generation (persons of 20-25 years old). It is generation where a double origin begins dominating; so some forms of expressing the double identity are being formulated.

In the case of self-determination, there were several answers like "I feel both Serbian and Hungarian", "I am the Serb of Hungarian origin", "My father is Serbian, my mother Hungarian-I cannot answer the question". Such blending of identities which is in a full opposition to essentialistic notion of ethnic identity, is of particular interest for research, as it is considered hat in everyday life essentialism is the most spread among ordinary people, and that it is the very reason of the power of ethnicity. The question is, however, whether in the long run this dilution of symbolic boundaries by the very membres of community, will lead to the erosion of community, or enable its further maintenance, despite a small number of its members.

One more question regarding the double or complex identities of the members of a national minority which can be asked regards the affiliation with the country wherein the members of national minority live. Immediately the difference between the rational and the emotional approaches is visible-it can be expressed by the words-we love ours, we respect what is foreign. However, from the statements of my collocutors a specific emotional connection can be read, established not as much towards Hungarian people or the State, and national Hungarian history, but towards the territory, the soil, which is common, whereon the Hungarians and the Serbs and other nations live on these spaces, as well as towards the contribution to the common State, sacrifices for it, ancestors connected to this territory, the past which is "the past of our forefathers", but linked to Hungarian land. In some aspects this regards the land in the narrower sense-spil- which is feeding us and wherein we are buried. That soil or land is nowadays the territory of the Hungarian State-thereby the emotions related to "our soil" are transferred and linked to the State where, the Serbs live now.

As we know ethnic identity is or could be flexible, multiple category. In this paper I just wanted to give an example (of course not the whole picture, but several most striking points) of concepts among Serbs in Hungary.

© 1997-2001 - Пројекат Растко; Технологије, издаваштво и агенција Јанус; Научно друштво за словенске уметности и културе; носиоци ауторских права. Ниједан део овог сајта не сме се умножавати или преносити без претходне сагласности. За захтеве кликните овде.