THE ETHNIC IDENTITIES

OF EUROPEAN MINORITIES
THEORYAND CASE STUDIES

WYDAWNICTWO UNIWERSYTETU GDANSKIEGO

THE ETHNIC IDENTITIES

OFEUROPEAN MINORITIES
THEORYANDCASE STUDIES

EDITED BY

BRUNON SYNAK

WYDAWNICTWO UNIWERSYTETU GDANSKIEGO

1995

Hans Vermeulen

The Concept of Ethnicity, Illustrated with Examples

from the Geographical Region of Macedonia

World War 11 and the postwar anti-colonial struggles had important effects
onreigning notions about nationalismand the incorporation of ethnic minorities
in modem nation-states. Assimilation, which had been the dominant political
and scientific paradigm, became discredited. Jews began to abandon the ideal
of assimilation: the Shoah made clear that assimilation was not a protection
against racism. Blacks in the United States rejected assimilation for similar
reasons. They found their inspiration in theanti-colonial liberation movements
and the writings of Fanon (Carmichael &Hamilton 1967). Thecolonial metaphor and the notion of 'internal colonialism' became important elements in
ethnic-nationalist movements inthe West, as well as innew attempts tounderstand these (e.g. Hechter 1975).
The rejection of the ideal of assimilation was accompanied bythe rise or
reassertion of a newideal, what McNeill calls 'the polyethnic norm' (1986).
During the early70's anumber of governments of highly developed multi-ethnic
states - e.g. those of Australia, Canada and Sweden - began to use the term
multiculturalism todenote a new approach to ethnic minority issues. The somewhat vague notion of multiculturalismmaybe used for alarge range of ideals
and related policy measures. Minimally it implies adistancing fromassimilation
as policy goal, a promotion of greater respect for other, ethnic cultures and an
intention to combat the condescending attitudes, if not outright racism, of the
dominant majority. Multiculturalism may also include, however, the ideal of a
more active celebration andpromotion of cultural diversity.
It was during the eventful late 60's that ethnicity became an important
concept inthe social sciences. Though the adjective 'ethnic' and dienotion of
41

'ethnic group' were commonly used, the noun 'ethnicity' was all but unknown.
The notion of ethnicity came up as part of the critique on the assimilationist
perspective, but the termdid- in contrast to both 'assimilation' and 'muliculturalism' - not imply a specific ideal or policy goal. Neither is theconcept of
ethnicity related toa specific theoretical approach.
This article is devoted to the concept of ethnicity. The main arguments
will be illustrated with examples from the geographic region of Macedonia.^
Tough 'concept' and'theory' are interrelated, I concentrate on conceptual rather
than theoretical issues. I stait by presenting the concept of ethnicity and discussing some general issues andproblems related toit. Afterwards I will consider
two more specific aspects. The first concerns the role of language andreligion
in our conceptualization of ethnic identity. The second deals with the relevance
of the notion of social construction for our understanding of ethnicity.
The concept of ethnic identity

For a long time social scientists tended to see ethnic groups as clearly
bounded units, characterized by a specific culture, shared by all its members.
The issueof ethnic identity was considered unproblematic. Suchcleai-ly bounded
social units hadnames andthemembers of such groups were thought toknow
who they were. Ethnic identity was in this view an expression of culture, a
natural companion of cultural distinctiveness. Ethnic identity was the same as
cultural identity and did not need a special name. This view on the relation
between culture and ethnicity was usually not explicitly formulated. It was rather
the product of unexpressed assumptions, influenced by the intellectual climate
of the time.
The changes of the sixties implied theemancipation of the notion of 'ethnicity' and its differentiation from 'culture'. Though the work of many social
scientists expressed and contributed to these changes (see e.g. Eriksen 1993),
Earth's introduction to Ethnic groups and boundaries (1969) holds a central
place. Earthused the termethnicity torefer to 'the social organization of culture
difference', the subtitle of the book just mentioned. In this way Earth stressed
that ethnicity has todowith theinteraction between groups, is anaspect of the
way intergroup-relations are structured. The study of ethnicity can, however.
1 The first touse the concept of ethnicity was Max Weber (1968). His example was not followed, however.
2 The first two cases rely heavily on an article I wrote a decade ago (Vermeulen 1984). Some of the
additional, main sources for the three cases are: Adanir 1979, Danforth 1993, Poulton 1995, Winnifrith
1987.

42

also be viewed as part of the study of cognitive systems, ideology and culture.
In tills sense ethnicity is a product of categorization, ascription and self-ascription. Ethnicity implies a distinction between 'us' and 'them'. The notion of
ethnicity refers, however, to a specific type of distinction or social identity:
ethnic identity distinguishes itself from other social identities by a belief in a
common descent, history and culture. Ethnicity implies an ideology of peoplehood, an ideology of common substance, to use formulations from Immanuel
Wallerstein (1991) and Eric Wolf (1988). One could also say: the ethnic community distinguishes itself from other communities by the way it is imagined.
I want to drawthe reader's attention to three aspects or implications of the
conceptualization and definition of ethnic identity presented here. First, the definitionI gave stresses the belief in a common descent, history and culture. This
definition differs from definitions which include also objective features, like
shaiing the same language, religion, territory or history.^ The reason touse such
a - as it is sometimes called - subjective definition is not to deny the relevance
ofsuchsupposedly 'objective' features as language. Rather, it assumes that there
is adifference between the ideological representation of such features and their
reality as established by other means. It is exactly to study this variable relation
between so-called objective reality and its representaion that a 'subjective definition' is chosen. It gives us, I would argue, a better position to understand the
historicity of ethnic categories and representations.'* A definition as proposed
here has the further advantage of simplicity. Adefinition as proposed does not
- as is often assumed - imply a 'subjective' interpretation or explantation, an
explantation only in terms of ideas. The three ethnographic cases illlustrate this.
Secondly, defining ethnicity in terms of identity in the sense of consciousness or awareness of difference, makes clear that ethnicity is a matter of degree.
This has led some people touse the notion of ethnicity only where there is some
clearly expressed emphasis on difference and to relate ethnicity to modernity.
Thesepeople alsostress that ethnicity is aproduct of contact, not lack of contact.
Others have made a distinction between two ideal types, extremes on a continuum. The first type is characterized by a feeling of belonging which is experienced as 'natural', but which is hardly aiticulated. The second type is characterized by an emphasis on and poUticization of difference under conditions of
decreasing difference. One might add that such a process of increasing ethnic
3 A distinction can be made between 'objective', 'subjective' and 'mixed' definitions. The last ones are
most common. They include references to common 'objective' characteristics as weUas to some subjective notions of common descent and fate or feelings of solidarity.
4 This is evident when one compares the work of Anderson (1983) and GeUner (1983) with that of Smith
who uses a mixed definition and pays much less attention to the way ethnic communities are imagined
(see e.g. Smith 1991).

43

awareness among some members usually co-occurs with assimilation of others.^

This distinction is indicated by terms like old ethnicity versus new ethnicity
(Bennett 1975), ethnicity versus symbolic ethnicity (Gans 1979), unreflected
culture versus reflected culture (Roosens 1989) and natiormess versus nationalism(Bomeman 1992).
Thirdly, ethnic identity - as here conceived - has a dynamic and variable
character. Ethnic labels, the content of ethnic identities, ethnic boundaries and
ethnic ideologies change over time. There is not only variability over time.
Within an ethnic group at a specific moment in time there are usually also
different, competing conceptions about the group's identity. So there were competing views of what ethnic label should be applied to the Slav-speaking population of Macedonia, both among outsiders and members of the group itself. But
even where people agree on the label, they may have very different ideologies
about the nature of ethnic or national essence. Lately these internal differentiations in ethnic conceptions have been given more attention. An example is
the study of the interwar debates in Romania regarding the Romanian 'national
essence' by Verdery (1990). Verdery distinguishes three conceptions: apro-western conception which held that the Romanians descended fromRome, an oriental one which emphasized Thracian roots and the legacy of Eastem Orthodoxy,
and a indigenist one stressing local roots and holding the viewthat the Dacians
are the principal ancestors of the Romanian people.
An important aspect regarding ethnic minorities is the way both majority
and minority view the relation between ethnic minority identity and national
identity. In the ideology of ethnic movements aiming at some formof autonomy
or independence the ethnic identity is usually defined in opposition to the national one, in the sense that to belong to the minority means not tobe a member
of the majority (ethnic) nation. So Vlach nationalists defined themselves as a
separate people, having no historical relationship to Greeks or Slavs. Most
Vlachs, however, did not see any problem in being Vlach and something else
(most often Greek) at the same time (see case 3).
Before concluding this paragraph a few words should be said about the
relation between ethnicity and nationalism. Though ethnos and natio had very
similar meanings during the classical period^, and though they remain very
related, both concepts have acquired somewhat different meanings. The main
problemin relating the two is that the termnation refers to two rather different
5 The case of the Vlachs around the turn of the century resembles the last situation (see case 2).
6 My old Greek dictionary lists for ethnos - among others - group, race, nation, people, flock, and my
Latin one for natio birth, descent, tribe, people. Both could in early Christian times in the plural refer to
heathens.

44

situations. To put it simply it both refers to an ethnic or ethnos which aims at

having its own state, or at least a degree of autonomy within the state (or having
reached that autonomy or independence) and to a state which aims at forging
as much unity as possible by creating something resembling an ethnos by a
process ussually referred to as nation-building. This distinction is known in the
literature by many names, e.g. the ethnic or cultural nation and the political or
territorial nation, hi the first case the nation can be conceived of as a type of
ethnic; in the second case ethnic is rather the metaphor in which unity is expressed. Since we are only concerned here with ethnic nationalism we do not
need to deal with this issue here in more detail.^
Anumber of the issues I discussed can be illustrated by the following case.
Case 1. The ethnic identity of the rural population of Macedonia in the
nineteenth century
Present-day Macedonia is not only the country of the ethno-national
group of the Macedonians. Within the boundaries of the new Macedonian
state other ethnic groups exist, such as Albanians and Gypsies. Before the
Ottomans left in 1913 the ethnic situation in the geographic region Macedonia - which is larger than the present state bearing that name - was even
more complex. Though the Slavs constituted the largest ethnic group, they
formed only forty to fifty percent of the population. The rest consisted
mainly of Turks, Greeks, Albanians, Jews and Vlachs.
This is at least how the population of Macedonia at that time is usually
described. I would argue that this is a misleading description, because it
uses our current classifications and projects them on the past A study of
ethnicity as understood here, however, requires the study of ethnic classifications, ascriptions, identifications and ideologies by the people of Ottoman Macedonia themselves. How can the population of Macedonia be described from such a perspective?
Let me try to do this very briefly for the Orthodox rural population of
Macedonia in the nineteenth century, at a point in time when the influence
of the new nationalist ideologies was not or hardly felt in the countryside.
Asimple peasant at that time would see himself first as member of a family
and village. Next he might identify himself as a member of a religious
community, in this case the Orthodox one. The Ottoman Empire was organized in religious communities, the so-called millets. The millets had a
7 There are also differences between Western and Eastern Europe in the way words derived from ethnos
and natio are used (see e.g. Shanin 1989 on the concept national'nost).

45

degree of administrative autonomy. The Orthodox millet was known as the

Rum millet and those who belonged to it were called Rum (in Greek Romids), whatever language they spoke. The term Rum was thus a religious
label. At the same time, however, it did have an ethnic-'Greek' connotation.
The Orthodox miUet was dominated by the 'Greeks' and the Greek language, called Romeikd in Greek, was the language of the church and of the
schools run by the church.
Peasants were, however, not only members of families, villages and
imagined religious communities. There were many named groups at an
intermediate level, between village and religious community. To clarify this
it is useful to switch from the 'ethnic' to the 'cultural' dimension. Gellner
stated in his treatment of culture and identity in agrarian society that in such
a society; 'Life-style, occupation, language, ritual practice, may fail to be
congruent' (Gellner 1983: 13). We might add: different combinations of
life-style, occupation, language and ritual practice or religion produced different social identities. For Macedonia one could make an almost endless
list of such groups. To name a few: Damakides (a small group of Turkishspeaking and Greek-Orthodox villages in South-Eastem Macedonia), Hashiots (a group of very poor, Greek-speaking villagers, being atypical in the
socio-economic, occupational sense), Donmesh (Jewish muslims, mainly in
Thessoloniki, a mainly Jewish city also known as 'little Jerusalem') and
Torbeshes (Slav-speaking muslims).
The Slav-speaking pea^-mt population could refer to itself as 'Bulgar',
but this termdid not have the same connotations as it has today. It had the
connotation of 'poor, Slav-speaking peasant'. This was related to the fact
that upwardly mobile Slav-speakers, became 'hellenized', i.e. became Greek.
The termTurk also had a different meaning than it has today. Like the term
Rum it had first of all religious connotations. Tlie term 'Turks' was used
for muslims, also when their native language was Greek, Albanian, Slav or
Vlach. Moreover the termTurk also had connotations of class in the sense
that it was not used for the muslim, Turkish-speaking Ottoman elite.
This case shows us how different the ethnic tableau of Macedonia during
the nineteenth century was, if we compare it with the present situation. By
saying this I do not refer so much to the greater ethnic heterogeneity of the
population, but to the different way of conceptualizing this heterogeneity. Our
present ethnic labels had different meanings or did not even exist. Moreover
there were a lot of less encompassing, low-order ethnic identities. These identities have now disappeared or lost much of their significance.
46

Religion and language as markers of ethnic identity

Before the advent of nationalism in Macedonia religious identities, institutionalized in the millet system, were the most encompassing identities. Language played a rather insignificant role in defining or marking social identities.
In the second half of the nineteenth century language became more important.
The secular, ethnic nationalist ideologies of the time stressed the importance of
language as a criterion of group membership. Schooling expanded and schools
became the battleground for the competing interests of the different ethnonational movements. The hierarchical Orthodox unity under Greek cultural dominance slowly broke down along linguistic lines (Vermeulen 1984).
The importance of language for the development of nationalismhas been
stressed by many theorists of nationalism. Gellner links the development of
nationalism with the increasing need of modernizing societies for context-free
media of communication and school-transmitted cultures (Gellner 1983).^ Anderson relates nationalism to the standardization of vernacular languages and
the development of printing and print capitalism(Anderson 1983). Religion may
have been the basis of the first stages of ethno-national mobilization (e.g. Enloe
1980: 361), it ceded its leading role to language, especially in the secularizing
'West'. The shift from religion to language as the main focus of an ideology of
common substance and descent relates to a shift from 'a conception of temporality in which cosmology and history were indistinguishable' (Anderson 1983:
40) to a more linear, historical conception of time.
Notwithstanding the increasing role of language, the continuing significance of religion as ethnic boundary marker should not be underestimated.^ Within
Europe this holds in particular for Eastern Europe and the Balkans. In an article
on religion and language as criteria of identity Lockwood criticizes the idea,
expressed by Barth (1969)^, that diacritical criteria of ethnic identity appear to
have an arbitrary character. Lockwood argues that ethnic distinctive culture traits
are not merely markers of social boundaries, but have causal import in their
own right. On the basis of a comparison between Serbian-Croatian-Moslem
relations in Bosnia (characterized by religious differences)^' and Croatian-Au8 In Gellner's treatise on nationalismculture refers primarily to language (1983, pp. 43-44).
9 There are, of course, other ways in which religion may be important in the study of nationalism. Notwithstanding the emphasis on language, the religious notion of 'chosemiess' is not uncommon in Western
nationalism(see e.g. Hutchinson &Lehmann 1994). Moreover, nationalismcan also be seen as a secular
religion and the nation as the God of modernity (Llobera 1994).
10 Recently Barth reformulated his position on this point (see Barth 1994).
11 The three ethnic groups of Bosnia are generally considered to speak the same language (Serbo-Croatian).
The differences between the languages spoken by the three groups are mainly lexical. Moslems, for

47

strian relations in Burgenland (in which language makes the difference), he

concludes that linguistic markers provide more fluid boundaiies than religious
ones, i.e. people cross linguistic boundaries more easily, either on a temporary
or on a permanent basis. Others have argued that one ought to make a distinction, in this context, between different types of religion. So Enloe argues that
ethnic boundaries are least porous and interethnic relations most tense 'when
two ethnic groups confess different religions, each religion is theologically and
organizationally elaborate and explicit, and when those religions have generated
taboos operative in the routine aspects of life, for instance diet' (1980: 352).
Gellner's position is similar. He stresses that language and formal religious
doctrine may be relatively easiliy shed, but that 'deeply engrained religious-cultural habits' and 'pervasive values and attitudes which, in the agrarian age, are
usually linked to religion (...) frequently have a limpet-like persistence' (Gellner
1983: 71). Such differences may even continue to play a role after secularization
has diminished the importance of religion, as Gellner ai-gues for the Bosnian
case (1983: 71-72).
The Bosnian case shows that people who speak the same language but
differ in their religious affiliation may consider themselves separate ethnic
12

groups. Sharing a religion may also, under certain circumstances, mute

existing linguistic differences. The Vlach case may serve as an example.
Case 2. Language and religion in the process of ethnic change: the case
of the Vlachs
The Vlachs belong to that category of ethnic groups which - like the
Kashubes in Poland - have no state of their own, nor aspire to have one.
The Vlachs - also known under other names, such as Aromunians,
Cincars and Macedo-Romanians - are a people who speak a Romanic language, related to Romanian and Italian. They live dispersed over different
countries, with a relatively high concentration in the geographic region of
Macedonia, in particular the southwestern part, on the eastern side of the
Pindus mountains. Since the partition of Macedonia this largest concentration - to which I restrict myself here - nowbelongs to Greece. The Vlachs
are traditionally shepherds. By living in the high mountains and travelling
example, use more words of Turkish origin (see e.g. TrudgiU 1974, pp. 61-62). Recently the Moslems
call themselves Bosnjaci (Bosnians in an ethnic sense), to be distinguished fromBosanci (Bosnians ina
geographical sense), and claim to have their own language. This illustrates in a roundabout way the
modemimportance of language.
12 Rehgion does not constitute the only difference between the Serbs, Croats and (Bosnian) Moslems. Croats
and Serbs, for example, do also have a different historical experience, the former as part of the Habsburg
Empire, the latter as part of the Ottoman Empire.

48

over large distances with their flocks, fromwinter- to summerpastures, they

developed secondary occupations such as brigandage, muleteering and
trade. As traders many settled in the cities of Northern Greece and in places
as far as Egypt Vlachs were almost all Orthodox christians and belonged
to the Greek-Orthodox church. Through the church and their trade activities
- trade was dominated by the Greeks - many Vlachs became 'hellenized',
i.e. lost their Vlach language and consciousness. Some maintain that the
Vlachs contributed very much to the Greek character of the cities in Macedonia.
Nevertheless, during the nineteenth century a Vlach ethnic movement developed. This movement was stimulated and supported by the Romanian
government. It was mainly directed against Greek cultural dominance in the
church and the related school system and demanded the introduction of the
Vlach language in school and church. The Vlach movement defined Vlach
identity in opposition to Greekness, that is to say being Vlach impUed not
being Greek. Like the Slav villages, the Vlach villages were at the end of
the nineteenth and early twentieth century often divided in two factions or
national parties, in this case a pro-Greek and a pro-Vlach party. Vlach
nationalists realized that it was not realistic to aim at a Vlach state. However, they did demand a degree of cultural autonomy. Since this meant
getting rid of Greek cultural dominance, they did not want to become part
of the Greek nation-state. Serious alternatives were the continuation of the
Ottoman Empire or the establishment of a Macedonian state in which all
ethnic groups would have equal rights. It should be realized, however, that
even when the Vlach movement had reached its maximum strength, most
Vlachs were not involved in it, nor even sympathised with it. Contrary to
the Vlach nationalists these Vlachs did not see their Vlach identity in opposition to a Greek identity, would not attach much significance to their
'Vlachness', which in their view did not contradict with being Greek. Both
parties, the pro-Vlach and the pro-Greek, each had their own ethnic ideologies or theories. The Vlach nationaUsts stressed that they were a separate
people. The ethnic theory of the pro-Greek party claimed that the Vlachs
were Romanized Greeks, that is to say that they directly descend from the
Greeks of the classical period.
The history of the Vlachs since their incorporation in the Greek state
has not been very well studied up to now. What is clear, however, is that
the Greek state has always followed a policy based on the premise that
Vlachs are Greek 'in consciousness' if not 'by descent'. In this view Vlachs
are a kind of Greeks, not only in a civic-national sense, but also in an
49

ethnic-national sense. There has been little room for other views and there
have been only few signs of a Vlach consciousness in opposition to
13

Like the other ethnic groups of Macedonia the Vlachs also developed
Greekness.
an ethnic or national movement. This movement was mainly directed at
claiming rights for the Vlach language in church and school. Many arguments can be put forward to explain why the Vlach movement in Ottoman
times had relatively fewsupporters and little success (see Vermeulen 1984).
One reason was undoubtedly the negative and repressive attitude of the
Greek clergy in Ottoman times. After the main Vlach region became pait
of the Greek state in 1913 the authorities left even less roomfor the Vlach
language. It would, however, be far too simple to see repression as the main
or only explanation for the lack of strength of the Vlach movement. The
notion of religious community and the related belief - on both the Greek
and the Vlach side of the ethnic boundary - that Vlachs were Greek strongly
contributed to this.
The case of the Albanian Greeks is similar to that of the Vlachs. In their
introduction to an article on this group Tiudgill and Tzavaras warn us against
a simple equation of ethnic and language group membership. They remai-k that
cases 'where language distinctiveness appears not to be accompanied by any
awareness of a separate ethnic identity' seem often puzzling to us (TrudgiU &
Tzavaras 1977: 171). Albanian-Greeks were very concerned to stress that they
were Greeks and there 'are no signs at all of any Arvanitika''*revival movement'
(TrudgiU & Tzavaras 1977: 181). The commonality of religion - though not
much stressed by the authors - seems to play a role in this case too.
After relating these cases one may well wonder whether the strong association between language and ethnicity is not a Eurocentric vision, particularly
characteristic of West European scholars. Such a point of view considers language as the most central characteristic of 'peoples' (Volker). This view follows
Herder according to whom 'Volk' and language cannot be conceived of independently from each other (Llobera 1994: 168). There is, however, no reason
why religion may not be as much (or as little) an indicator of descent. We
13 During World War II - after the rise of fascism in Italy and Romania - it was attempted to harness the
Vlachs to the fascist cause, making use of the linguistic affinity. This led to the declaration of a Vlach
'Principality of the Pindus', with the Vlach extremist Alcibiades Diamandi as Prince. This declaration
had few consequences, however.
14 Arvanitika is the name for the Albanian dialect spoken in Greece.

50

distinguished two descent tiieories for the Vlachs: one holds that they are a
different people since they have a different language. The other holds that the
Vlachs descent from the Greeks, with whom they share their religion. There is
no a priori reason to accept one of these two explanations. Moreover, the historical record does not give conclusive evidence of either (Winnifrith 1987). But,
even if it did, could or should such evidence be used in a prescriptive, normative
way in attempts to convince the Vlachs who they 'reaUy' are?
Ethnic identity: a matter of social construction?

Social construction is a popular, if not fashionable, concept in present-day

pubUcations on ethnicity and nationalism. The concept indicates, however, a
variety of meanings. Where it refers to the imagined character of ethnic identities, to their historicity and to their dynamic character, in opposition to a static,
ahistorical and primordial conception of ethnicity, there is little to object to.
Statements that a particular ethnic identity is socially constructed may also
have the connotation that that identity is a more or less free and arbitrary creation, with little relation to 'reality'. Some authors oppose such socially constructed categories or identities to natural ones, suggesting that ethnic identities
are less 'real' than others, for example class identities. Anderson's notion of
imagined community is sometimes also interpreted in this way. It is important
tostress, however, that Anderson speaks about imagined communities, not about
imaginary communities (cf. Smith 1991). According to Anderson 'all communities larger than the primordial villages of face-to-face contact (and perhaps
even these) are imagined' (1983: 15), that is to say: they exist in the imagination.
In this view class as social identity (Klasse fur sich) is as imagined as ethnicity.
There is no suggestion, moreover, in Anderson's text that imagined communities
are less real than face-to-face communities.
The notion of social construction may also be used in a more strictiy social
constructionist way. Social constructionism is a theoretical and epistemological
movement. It implies, among other things, that 'the degree to which a given
form of understanding prevails or is sustained across time is not fundamentally
dependent on the empirical validity of the perspective in question, but on the
vicissitudes of social processes (e.g. communication, negotiation, conflict, rhetoric)' (Gergen 1985: 268). Relating it to our subject, it implies that research
should not focus on the empirical validity of ethnic categories, but on the way
they are produced or socially constructed. Ethnic identities are primarily analysed in terms of discourse, rhetoric or ideology. The focus is on the role of
51

intellectuals, politicians and others in the social construction of identities and

identities tend be presented as arbitrary or accidental historical products.
If there is one European case which could convince the reader of the social
constructionist position, it is probably the (ethnic) Macedonian one. So, let us
look at the case somewhat more closely.
Case 3. The making of a Macedonian identity
The first case gave a rough and somewhat static sketch of the ethnic
situation in Macedonia as it existed before the age of nationalism. The
complex ethnic situation of Macedonia changed drastically in the second
part of the nineteenth and early twentieth century. Nationalism was both an
expression of these changes and a cause. Nationalism is often conceived of
as an awakening. Reality is less romantic. In Macedonia newidentities were
often forced upon people from the outside.
In the first case I did not mention a Macedonian ethnic or national
identity. The reason is simple: such an identity did not yet exist at the time.
So the question arises: how and when did it develop? The Macedonian
nationalist point of view which claims - as nationalists tend to do - an
age-long unchanging identity, is clearly unsatisfactory. Could the dominant
Greek view - which is not an exclusively Greek one - be true? According
to this view there are real nations, such as the Greek one, and pseudo-nations. Pseudo-nations are nations without historical legitimacy, nations
which are invented or constructed; the suggestion is that pseudo-nations
have no right to exist. The Macedonian nation is - in this dominant Greek
view - artificially created by Tito.
The proper question to ask is, in my view, not the essentialist question
what the Slav population of Macedonia really is in ethno-national terms Macedonian, Bulgarian or something else. They question is how they became what they are, i.e. how a Macedonian identity developed. The first
point to make is that it took quite a time before the majority of the population developed a Macedonian consciousness. Before it came into bemg
another national consciousness had developed: a Bulgarian one. How did
that happen?
Let me mention a few arguments which help to explain the development of a Bulgarian consciousness:
1. There was a felt cultural kinship or affinity between the Slav population of Macedonia and the Bulgarians. The Slav dialects spoken in
Macedonia were part of a linguistic continuum between Serbian and Bulgarian, but more related to what came to be known as Bulgarian.
52

2. Moreover, 'Bulgar' was a label which the rural Slavs of Macedonia

were accustomed to use to refer to themselves. Though one may argue as some have done - that Bulgar was not an ethnic term, the use of the
term as a term of self-reference will certainly have facilitated considering
oneself as Bulgarian in a more purely ethnic or national sense.
3. Economically Macedonia was more oriented to Bulgaria than to
Serbia at the time when nationalist ideologies developed. There was quite
an extensive migration to Bulgaria, for example. In 1903 almost half the
population of Sofia consisted of Macedonians. As a result of this there
developed an intelligentsia which was oriented towards Bulgaria.
4. After the establishment of a separate Bulgarian Orthodox church
(1870) and state (1878), both church and state developed an active interest
in Macedonia. The Bulgarians succeeded in convincing a lai'ge part of the
Slav population that they should leave the Greek Orthodox church and join
the Bulgarian one, in that way declaring themselves Bulgarian.
The reasons why most Slav peasants became 'Bulgarians' are many,
but it was not the awakening of a deep feeling of Bulgarianness. Part of
the rural population - especially in the south - remained within the Greek
Orthodox church; by doing this they in fact declared themselves to be
Greek. Another part declared themselves to be Serbs, whether under pressure of the Serbs or not.
There were, however, also reasons in the long term which made a
Bulgarian choice less attractive and Macedonian autonomy and/or a Macedonian identity more so:
1. First the language question. In the period of the construction of a
national Bulgarian language there was disagreement as to whether the new
language should be based on the western, Macedonian, vernaculars or on
the eastern. The second position prevailed. As a result the difference between the national Bulgarian language and the Macedonian dialects became
much greater than it otherwise would have been. This led a few intellectuals, after the establishment of the Bulgarian state (1878) and language, to
advocate Macedonian as a separate language and to conceive of the Slav
Macedonians as a separate people.
2. The establishment of a Bulgarian state and the fact that the Great
Powers decided that Macedonia would not become part of this state - though for a moment it looked like it would - meant that from the 1870's
Macedonia followed a different historical trajectory, up to 1913 still as part
of the Ottoman Empire. It was especially during this period that the idea
developed of a separate Macedonian state. The slogan 'Macedonia for the
53

Macedonians' at first implied the ideal of a separate state for all the peoples
of Macedonia, independent of language and rehgion. Most of the proponents of this ideal still did not think of the Slav population as Macedonians
in an ethnic sense.
3. From 1913 onwards Macedonia became part of Yugoslavia, at first
called the Kingdomof Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. The Macedonian population resisted the attempts at Serbianization. Most experts agree that at the
beginning of World War II the majority of the Slav population of Macedonia still did not consider itself as either Serbian or Macedonian, but rather
as Bulgarian. It must be added that it is possible, that many peasants did
not care much about their ethnic-national identity.
During and after World War II more and more Macedonian Slavs came
to see themselves as Macedonians. There were at least three reasons for
this:
a. First, Macedonia was occupied twice by Bulgaria during the war.
Particularly the second time, during World War II, the occupation was very
condescending and harsh toward the population. Resentment and growth of
autonomist feelings were the result (Poulton 1995).
b. Since Tito came to power within the Communist Party of Yugoslavia (KPJ) he had pleaded for a separate Macedonian state as part of a
future Balkan federation, not a new idea among Balkan communists. Already in November 1943 Macedonia was given equal status with the other
five federal units and the Macedonian nation was affirmed.
c. From that moment a process of nation-building started. A new
national language and history were constructed and a new, national church
was founded.^^ This was quite successful: the population now spoke Macedonian and came to see itself as Macedonian. By claiming a part of the
Balkan past as their 'property' Macedonia came, however, in conflict with
Bulgaria and even more so with Greece.Both states felt that Macedonia
had stolen some of their national heroes, national symbols and other national property.
So the Greeks are right? Yes and no. Yes, because the Macedonian
identity is something recent. Yes, because 'the decision of the Yugoslav
15 In 1958 an archbishopric was established in Ohrid. In 1967 it became an independent church.
16 They declared Cyril and Methodi - two monks who spread the gospel among the Slav population of the
Balkans - to be Macedonians rather than Bulgarians. They further considered the Bulgarian Empire of
Samuil to be Macedonian and claimed a number of nationalist leaders, which Bulgaria considerd to be
Bulgarian nationaUsts, as Macedonian nationalists. They entered the historical territory of the Greeks by
claiming descent fromthe old Macedonians and by stating that the Macedonian Empire was part of their,
rather than Greek, history.

54

communists to grant Macedonia a significant degree of autonomy in the

cultural sphere was a great impetus to the development of Macedonian
nationalism' (Poulton 1995). No, because Macedonian identity was not simply invented by Tito and imposed on the population. It slowly took shape
as a result of a complex history. Even though the Slav population of Macedonia did not have a Macedonian identity in the 19th century, such an
identity has roots among a small group of intellectuals in the latter part of
that century. Moreover, the question can be asked if the Greek view that
Greeks constitute a 'real nation', in the sense of existing from time immemorial, is correct. I don't think so. During the Ottoman period there was
no termfor Greeks in a modem ethno-national sense. The termnow in use
(Ellinas) did not exist as part of everyday discourse. It was reintroduced by
Greek secular nationalists, who wanted to create a new concept of Greekness, linking Greece with the rediscovered classical period. In an interesting
study Herzfeld shows how, after the establishment of the Greek state, folklorists played an important role in the construction of the Greek nation and
of the continuity of that nation with ancient Greece (1982).
The constructionist perspective - and more generally the 'linguistic turn'
in social science theory - contributes to our understanding of ethnic processes
by focussing on discourse, rhetoric and ideology and on the role of intellectuals
and politicians in the 'invention', propagation and consolidation of ethnic identities. There are, however, at least two objections which can be raised. First, the
social constructionist approach tends to neglect the political and economic processes which influence the development of ethnic identities. In this regard it
resembles older conceptions which stressed the diffusion of nationalist ideas.
Secondly, and partly as a consequence of the first point, it tends to overestimate
the arbitrary and imaginary character of ethnic identities.
The national identity of Macedonian Slavs was certainly very malleable in
the sense that it has taken very different expressions in the course of recent
history: 'Greek', Serbian, Bulgarian and Macedonian. This high degree of malleability is, however, not characteristic of all ethno-national identities to the
same degree. So the question arises under which conditions ethnic identity is
malleable (Verdery 1994: 36). Verdery suggests that ethnic identities are most
flexible in early stages of modem nation-state formation. The Macedonian case
seems to confirm this, but something should be added. The fact that the Macedonians had more choices relates to their hnguistic position between the Serbians and Bulgarians and the lack of clear boundaries between these three
'groups', as well as to their originally subordinate position within the Orthodox
55

church. Their position is very similar to that of the Subcarpathian Rusyns described by Magocsi. According to Magocsi the Subcarpathian Rusyns, living in
the border area between Poland, and the Soviet Union, had several ethnic options. 'In essence, as an ethnic group, Subcarpathian Rusyns could have been
consolidated into an independent nationality or they could have associated and
become part of the Magyar, Slovak, Ukrainian, or Russian nationalities' states
Magocsi in the first chapter of his book and adds that he intends to clarify which
options were in fact taken (Magocsi 1978: 14).
Conclusion

It has been my purpose to discuss and clarify the concept of ethnicity or

ethnic identity. I argued in favour of what is usually considered to be a subjective
definition. Ethnicity in this sense is a form of classification, identification, consciousness and ideology. Objective differences between groups - like language,
rehgion or other elements of culture - play a role in the formation of ethnic
identity. Where clear differences exist and where many differences coincide the
unambiguous development of ethnic identities is more likely, but such a coincidence of mutually reinforcing boundaries is less common than often thought.
Usually clear boundaries are the result rather than the source of identity formation. Complex social, economic and pohtical processes influence the development of ethnic identities. I did not analyze these in any detail here. I only
presented some relevant aspects of the Macedonian case in an illustrative rather
than analytical way. Two aspects were given somewhat more systematic attention. First, the role of language and religion in the genesis of ethnic identities,
and, secondly, the idea of the social constructedness of ethnic identities. Regarding the first issue, I argued that language has become increasingly important
as a criteriumof ethnic and national identities since the beginning of the nationalist era. Nevertheless it is not a natural or indispensable companion of ethnic
awareness, as seems so often to be presupposed. Religion can be more important.
My main objection against the social constructionist conception of ethnic
identity - the second issue I dealt with in somewhat more detail - is that it tends
not only to define, but also to explain ethnic identity in a 'subjectivist' way.
Within this context I asked, following Verdery, attention to the question under
what conditions ethnic identity is malleable and gave a few suggestions, based
on the Macedonian case.
56

Let us return to where we started. At the beginning of this article I argued

that the concepts of ethnicity and multiculturalism both arose as a reaction to
assimilationism. While some version of multiculturalism tends to replace assimilation as political goal in modem states, ethnicity took its role as a central
scientific concept. Notwithstanding their common origin, both concepts developed more or less independently. Nevertheless, studies of ethnicity are relevant
to our conception of multiculturalism. They show us the dynamic character of
culture and identity and warn us against a static and essentialist conception of
culture and against related notions of what Tumer (1993) calls 'difference multiculturalism'. Difference multiculturalism is not a real alternative to the monocultural nation-state. It starts from the same static, monolithic notion of culture.
The small state of Macedonia has to find new answers to its poly-ethnic reality.
Though it has fared rather well since its independence - especially when we
take the difficult circumstances into account -, nationalist rhetoric by ethnic
Macedonians or Albanians may well become a danger to survival. It is to be
hoped that the 'multiculturalist' ideals of some of the early Macedonian leaders
will appeal more to citizens of the state of Macedonia than narrow nationalist
ideologies.
References

Adanir, F. (1979), Die Makedonische Frage. Ihre Entstehung und Entwicklung bis 1908,
Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag.
Anderson, B. (1983), Imaginedcommunities. Reflections onthe spreadofnationalism, London:
Verso.
Barth, F. (1969), Introduction, in: F. Barth /ed./. Ethnic groups and boundaries. The social
organization of culture difference, pp. 9-38, Bergen/London: Universitetsforlaget/ Allen
<&Unwin.
Barth, F. (1994), Enduring andemerging issues in the analysis of ethnicity, in: H. Vermeulen
&C. Covers /eds/. The anthropology of ethnicity. Beyond 'Ethnic groups andboundaries', pp. 11-32, Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis.
Bennett, J.W. (1975), Thenewethnicity. Perspectives fromethnology, 1973Proceedings of the
American Ethnological Society, St. Paul: West Publishing Co.
Bomeman, J. (1992), Belonging to two Berlins, Kin, state, nation, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Carmichael, St. &Ch. Hamilton (1967), Black power. The politics of liberation in America,
NewYork: RandomHouse.
Danforth, L.M. (1993), Claims to Macedonian identity. The Macedonian question and the
breakupof Yugoslavia, "Anthropology Today", vol. 9, no 4, pp . 3-10.
Eriksen, Th.H. (1993), Ethnicity andnationalism. Anthropological perspectives, London: Pluto
Press.
Gans, H. (1979), Symbolic ethnicity. The future of ethnic groups and cultures in America,
'Ethnic andRacial Studies", no 2, pp. 1-20.
Gellner, E. (1983), Nations andnationalism, Oxford:Basil Blackwell.
57

Gergen, K.J. (1985), The social constructionist movement in social psychology, "American
Psychologist", vol. 40, no 3, pp. 266-175.
Hutchison, W. R. &H. Lehmann /eds/ (1995), Many are chosen. Divine election and Western
nationalism, Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Llobera, J. R. (1994), The God of Modernity. Tlte development of nationalism in Western
Europe, Oxford: Berg.
Lockwood, W.G. (1981), Religion and language as criteria of ethnic identity. An exploratory
comparison, in: S. Beck &JohnW. Cole /eds/, Ethnicity andnationalismin Southeastern
Europe, pp.71-82, Amsterdam: Antropologisch-Sociologisch Centrum, Universiteit van
Amsterdam.
Magocsi, P. R. (1978), The shaping of a national identity. Subcarpathian Rus', 1848-1948,
Cambridge: HarvardUniversity Press.
McNeil, W. H. (1986), Polyetlmicity and national unity in world history, Toronto: Toronto
University Press.
Poulton, H. (1995), Who are the Macedonians? London: Hurst &Company.
Roosens, E. (1989), Creating ethnicity. The process of ethnogenesis, Newbury Park: Sage
Publications.
Shanin, T. (1989), Ethnicity inthe Soviet Union. Analytical perceptions andpolitical strategies,
"Comparative Studies inSociety andHistory", vol. 31, pp. 409-429.
Smith, A.D. (1991a), The nation: invented, imagined, reconstructed? "Millenium, Journal of
Intemational Studies", vol. 20, no 3, pp. 353-368.
Smith, A.D. (1991b), National identity, Harmondsworth: Penguin.
TrudgiU, P. (1974), Sociolinguistics. An introduction, Harmondswortli: Penguin.
Tmdgill, P. &G.A. Tzavaras (1977), Wliy Albanian-Greeks arenot Albanians. Language shift
in Attica and Biotia, in: H. Giles /ed./, Language, ethnicity and intergroup relations, pp.
171-184, London: Academic Press.
Tumer, T. (1993), Anthropology andmulticulturalism. What is anthropologythat multiculturalists shouldbe mindful of it? "Cultural Anthropology", vol. 8.
Verdery, K. (1990), The production anddefense of 'the Romaniannation', 1900 to WorldWar
II, in: R.G. Fox /ed./. Nationalist ideologies and the production of national cultures, pp.
81-111, Washington: American Anthropological Association, American Ethnological
Society Monograph Series, no 2.
Verdery, K. (1994), Ethnicity, nationalism, andthe state, in: H. Vermeulen &C. Covers /eds/.
The anthropology of ethnicity. Beyond 'Ethnic groups and boundaries', pp. 33-58,
Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis.
Vermeulen, H. (1984), Creekcultural domnance among the orthodox population of Macedonia
during the last period of Ottoman rule, in: A. Blok & H. Driessen /eds/. Cultural
dominance in the Mediterranean area, pp. 225-255, Nijmegen: Vakgroep Culturele
Anthropologie, KUNijmegen.
Wallerstein, I. (1991), The ideological tensions of capitalism. Universalismversus racismand
sexism, in: I. Wallerstein & E. Balibar /eds/. Race, nation and class. Ambiguous
identities, 29-36, London: Verso.
Weber, M. (1968), Economy and society. An outline of interpretative sociology. Editedby G.
Roth andCI. Dittrich, Berkeley: University of California Press, vol. I.
Wolf, E. (1988), Ethnicity and nationhood, "Journal of Ethnic Studies. Treatises and Docu58
ments", no 21, pp. 27-32.
Winnifrith, T.J. (1987), The Vlachs. The History of a Balkan People, London: Duckworth.