Area Handbook for Romania Part 7

The German population is divided into two groups--the Saxons and the Swabians. Although more or less equal in size, the groups differ in origin and, partly, in culture. The origin of the group usually identified as Saxons is not quite clear, but it was settled by the Hungarian rulers in the Transylvanian borderlands in the twelfth century for the same purpose as the Szeklers. The Saxons live mainly in the cities, such as Sibiu, Brasov, and Sighisoara, which they themselves founded and which have distinctly German characteristics. Some live in rural areas surrounding these cities.

Forming the majority population in a small area, the Saxons have lived in relative isolation until modern times. Their dialect and culture have retained medieval characteristics long abandoned by Germans elsewhere.

All Saxons have been Lutheran since that denomination was introduced into Transylvania in the sixteenth century.

The Swabians are Roman Catholics and live in the Banat region. As with the Saxons, their designation as Swabians does not truly reflect their origin. They were settled in the Banat during the eighteenth century to work the land recently vacated by the Turks. Before their arrival there, the language and culture of the Swabians had undergone various modifications to which the Saxons had not been exposed. Most Swabians are peasants farming the rich plain around Timisoara.

Like the Hungarians, the German minority in Romania has resisted a.s.similation and maintains its cultural ident.i.ty through German-language schools, books and newspapers, radio and television programs, and theatrical performances and through the perpetuation of their characteristic dress, dances, and folk art.

Jews

In those censuses in which they are identified (but not including that of 1966), Jews are listed as an ethnic group or nationality rather than as members of a religious denomination. In the 1956 census they represented the third largest minority in the country with a members.h.i.+p of 146,000. In early 1972 Western observers roughly estimated the number of Jews still residing in Romania at slightly under 100,000.

The influx of Jews into Romania took place during the first half of the nineteenth century when large numbers left the unsettled conditions of Poland and Russia to seek new opportunities in prospering Moldavia and, later, Walachia. A small number of Jews from various parts of Austria-Hungary settled in Transylvania at the same time and earlier. By 1900 Jews const.i.tuted more than one-half of the urban population of Romania, most of them engaged in commerce, banking, or industry. Not allowed to a.s.similate by various restrictions on their movement and activities, the Jews remained apart from the rest of the population.

This apartness and their role in the economy engendered distrust and resentment, which periodically erupted into persecution by some elements of the population (see ch. 2).

The loss of Bessarabia to the Soviet Union and the deportations and exterminations during World War II by the n.a.z.is reduced the Jewish population in Romania to its 1956 size. It has been further reduced since then through emigration to Israel.

Despite their historic separateness from the rest of the society, most Jews in the mid-twentieth century tend to think of themselves as Romanians of the Jewish faith rather than an ethnic minority. All speak Romanian, and only one-fourth claimed Yiddish as their mother tongue in the 1950s. They continue to be urban oriented, and one-fourth of them lived in Bucharest in 1956.

Other Minorities

Eight other ethnic groups were counted in the 1956 census. The largest was Ukrainian, numbering 60,000. Ukrainians formed the majority population in the southern part of the Danube delta and in pockets along the Soviet border. Some 45,000 Yugoslavs, mostly Serbs, lived in the southern Banat around the Iron Gate. Other Slav minorities included 39,000 Russians in northern Dobruja, near the Bessarabian border; 12,000 Bulgarians, mostly in southern Dobruja; and between 18,000 and 35,000 Czechs and Slovaks in the Banat.

Other ethnic groups of significance were 20,000 Tatars and 12,000 to 14,000 Turks in Dobruja, remnants of the period of Turkish rule.

Gypsies, variously estimated between 50,000 to 100,000, are not recognized officially as an ethnic minority and not counted separately in censuses. This, combined with their still largely nomadic life, makes any reasonably accurate enumeration difficult.

Interethnic Relations

Relations between Romanians and Hungarians, the two largest ethnic groups, have been less than smooth. During the eight centuries of Hungarian rule of Transylvania, Romanians, who const.i.tuted the poorest rural elements of the population, occupied a subservient position to the wealthier, more urbanized, and better educated Hungarians and Germans.

With the joining of Transylvania to Romania in 1918, the Hungarian and German populations of the region lost much of their favored position and, through land reform and nationalization since World War II, they lost their source of wealth. These factors have engendered ill feeling between the groups and have made Transylvania a continuing source of potential problems (see ch. 2; ch. 10). Other factors dividing Romanians and Hungarians have been religious and cultural differences.

Sensitive to the respective nationalist feelings of the Romanians and Hungarians and to the historical dissensions between them, government policy since 1947 has been one of promoting unity and cooperation among all groups for the good of the country as a whole. The theme of equality of all members of different ethnic groups and their close cooperation permeates all official doc.u.ments, reports, and statements. The Romanian Communist Party, which before World War II had a high percentage from ethnic minorities, represents itself as the historic protector of minority populations and their rights. In the late 1960s the party claimed that over 11 percent of its members.h.i.+p were non-Romanians, in line with the proportional strength of minorities in the population.

During the first decade of communist rule, the government and the people were so preoccupied with efforts to restructure society and foster communist internationalism that ethnic chauvinism and problems of interethnic relations receded into the background. The 1960s, however, saw the development of Romanian independence vis-a-vis Soviet domination and a resurgence of Romanian nationalism, which again raised the potential for minority problems. As the government and party stressed Romanian national independence and gave new emphasis to the historic and cultural heritage of the Romanians, they also emphasized the unity, equality, and fraternal cooperation between Romanians and minority groups. National unity became a vital factor in August 1968, and people's councils were established in the Hungarian, German, and other minority communities to act as spokesmen for the ethnic minorities in the Socialist Unity Front (see ch. 9).

The German minority, while anxious to preserve its cultural ident.i.ty and rights, seems to have good relations with the Romanians and with other ethnic groups. Although their historic experience and their religion give them a cultural affinity with the Hungarians, they have remained aloof from the Hungarian-Romanian issue in Transylvania. As a whole, Germans have remained to themselves in their own communities and have made little effort to integrate into the national society. This has engendered some resentment on the part of Romanians but no real hostility.

Historically, the relations between Jews and other Romanians have been fraught with suspicion and resentment, which found expression in occasional outbursts of anti-Semitism (see ch. 2). Although the same emotions undoubtedly still color the att.i.tudes and reactions of some of the people, they have been less evident since World War II, possibly because those Jews who survived and remained in the country have integrated themselves into society and identify with the Romanian majority.

SOCIAL STRUCTURE

Family

Traditionally, the family had been the basic social unit that gave ident.i.ty and security to the individual and furthered the values of society. Family cohesion was great, and close relations were maintained with parents, brothers and sisters, uncles and aunts, and first cousins.

Increased mobility and changing life-styles have somewhat loosened this cohesion, particularly among urban families. A growing number of women work outside the home; many men combine work and study, or they work at more than one job in order to improve the family standard of living; and children spend most of their time in school or youth organization activities. Thus, members of the family spend less time together, and the emphasis in daily life is to some degree s.h.i.+fting from the family to the outside world.

In official writing the family is hailed as the cornerstone of socialist society; and family cohesion, loyalty, and responsibility, as socialist virtues. Exemplary family life, particularly exemplary motherhood, is honored with citations and prizes. At the same time, however, all the factors that tend to undermine traditional family life, such as the employment of a greater number of women, are encouraged and promoted.

Since World War II families have tended to be small, having one or two children. Among the German and Hungarian minorities, families have always tended to be small, but Romanian families in the past were larger, particularly in rural areas where children were an important source of labor. The government became so alarmed by the dropping birth rate that it pa.s.sed strict new laws in the 1966-67 period to limit divorce, abortions, and the sale of contraceptives. The following years showed a sharp upsurge in the birth rate and a dramatic drop in the divorce rate, but in 1970 the birth rate again began to decline.

The main reasons for the drop in the birth rate and reduction in family size have been low wages and a shortage of housing. Many wives must work to help support the family, but published interviews with working wives indicate that they want few, if any, children because they lack the time and energy to care for them as they would like. In addition, the continuing housing shortage in urban areas forces families to live in crowded and inadequate quarters, which mitigates against having children.

In the eyes of the state, marriage is a secular matter. Religious ceremonies are permitted but must be preceded by a civil marriage. The minimum age for marriage without parental consent is eighteen for men and sixteen for women. People generally marry young--43 percent of the men married in 1968 were aged twenty to twenty-four, and another 30 percent were twenty-five to twenty-nine; 46 percent of the women married that year were aged fifteen to nineteen, and another 32 percent were twenty to twenty-four. The urban marriage rate was dropping considerably in the late 1960s, probably owing to the housing shortage, but the rural marriage rate remained fairly stable during the decade.

The law a.s.signs equal rights and obligations to both marriage partners.

In case of divorce the father is obliged to provide financial support for his children. After the pa.s.sage of a stringent new divorce law in 1967, the divorce rate dropped from 1.94 per 1,000 population in 1965 to 0.35 per 1,000 population in 1969, making it the lowest rate in Eastern Europe.

In most families the husband and wife are partners whose relations.h.i.+p is based on cooperation and mutual respect. The husband is the t.i.tular head of the family who represents it to the outside world, but within the family he customarily consults with his wife on almost all matters.

Patriarchal families where the father is the undisputed head are encountered among some peasants. Ideally, the husband provides for the family and protects it from the outside world, and the wife concerns herself with keeping house and raising children.

The diminution of the family's significance in rearing children has, however, fundamentally affected the role of the family in the second half of the twentieth century. As a result of the growing number of working women the roles of the husband and wife are no longer as clearly differentiated. Almost two-thirds of women aged over fifteen in 1966 were employed. Approximately three-fourths of these were married women who had a.s.sumed some of the husband's role of provider for the family.

At the same time they had relinquished some of their former functions in the household and with respect to children, some of which have been taken over by husbands or by outside inst.i.tutions.

Social Stratification

Patterns of social stratification have undergone a complete change since World War II. First, land reform immediately after the war eliminated the agricultural aristocracy and increased the number of small peasants who owned their own land. Then nationalization of industry and commerce in the late 1940s eliminated the urban propertied cla.s.s. Finally, collectivization of agriculture eliminated most of the newly enlarged small peasant cla.s.s. By the early 1950s the old system had been destroyed, and a new one was in the process of formation.

The period of so-called socialist reconstruction of the 1950s resulted in a general leveling of social strata through the demotion of formerly privileged groups and the promotion of formerly underprivileged groups.

Persons of peasant or worker origin received preferential treatment in the allocation of housing and other necessities of life that were in short supply, in the appointment to jobs, and in access to higher education. At the same time persons of middle or upper cla.s.s background were deprived of their housing, removed from key jobs, and denied educational opportunities for their children through a discriminatory quota system at secondary and higher schools. A policy of equalizing incomes made little distinction between differing levels of education or skill, thus eliminating material rewards as a basis for social stratification. At the same time, however, a small group of party stalwarts, most of them of lower or middle cla.s.s background, rose rapidly into the top positions of administrative and political power and became the new ruling elite.

As viewed by its own ideologists and sociologists, Romania in 1971 was in the socialist stage of development heading toward a cla.s.sless communist society. This meant that there were distinctions in income, standard of living, and prestige among different groups in the society; the distinctions, however, were based on occupation rather than owners.h.i.+p of property. Members of all groups were employees; the only employer was society as a whole through its organ, the state. The main basis for the distinction of cla.s.ses was the difference between manual labor and intellectual work. This difference was gradually being eliminated through the continuous upgrading of the prestige of manual labor.

Most Romanian writing on social strata or differentiation based on occupation separates society into three cla.s.ses: workers, intelligentsia, and peasants. By most definitions, workers are all those engaged in productive occupations, including both the unskilled laborer and the highly skilled technician. Intelligentsia are all those engaged in nonproductive occupations, such as office work or service jobs, including both the unqualified clerk and the enterprise manager or university professor. Sometimes, however, the intelligentsia is defined as all those with a secondary or higher education without regard to their occupations. Members of agricultural cooperatives are cla.s.sified as peasants, whereas employees of state farms are considered workers.

The small number of peasants still working private agricultural holdings are considered to be a disappearing remnant of the past and, therefore, are not included in any segment of the socialist society.

In 1969 workers were reported as const.i.tuting 40 percent of the population; intelligentsia, 12.3 percent; and peasants, 47.7 percent.

Comparable statistics for 1960 divided the population into 28.6 percent worker, 9.5 percent intellectual, and 61.9 percent peasant. Thus, the peasant cla.s.s was growing smaller while the worker and intellectual cla.s.ses were expanding. A continuation of this trend was forecast for the 1970s.

Cutting across this division was one based on skill and education. Thus the unskilled worker, the unskilled peasant, and the unqualified clerk were all members of the same stratum but of different cla.s.ses. It was not clear whether or not a division into strata would continue after cla.s.s distinctions were eliminated.

This view of the social structure seems to be more a statement of ideology than an a.n.a.lysis of the actual structure. On the basis of material rewards, social prestige, and political power, the highest stratum is the ruling communist elite, followed in turn by the intelligentsia--professional, managerial, and administrative personnel with a higher education--skilled manual workers, lower level white-collar personnel, and unskilled workers and peasants.

The ruling elite is composed of the top communist leaders.h.i.+p in the party, government, ma.s.s organizations, and various branches of the economy. The main criterion for members.h.i.+p in that elite is power derived from approved ideological orientation and political activism.

Most members of the ruling elite in 1971 were of lower cla.s.s background and were veterans of the communist movement in the interwar period. The life-style and privileges enjoyed by the ruling elite do not differ much from those of the intelligentsia, the next level in the social scale, but the elite holds a monopoly of power.

The intelligentsia consists of those professionals, managers, technicians, and middle-level party functionaries whose skill and talent are needed to run the society. Education and competence are usual criteria for members.h.i.+p in the group as is ideological orthodoxy. In 1970 the intelligentsia numbered somewhat over 1 million persons, approximately 22 percent of the working population. The size of the group has been growing rapidly in line with the manpower demands of the expanding economy. Most members were relatively young, had advanced educations, and were loyal to communist principles. Their social origins represented the entire spectrum of precommunist society, but a high percentage were of peasant or worker background reflecting the educational advantages afforded to the former lower cla.s.ses.

The life-style and aspirations of the intelligentsia are those of an industrial middle cla.s.s. Because of their key position in the economy, they command incomes and special benefits that afford them a standard of living considerably higher than that of the lower levels of the social scale. Among the benefits that individual members of the intelligentsia may enjoy are high-quality housing; the use of official cars; access to special facilities, such as clubs, restaurants, shops, and vacation resorts; and travel opportunities at home and abroad. The growing identification of the intelligentsia with the Romanian Communist Party has also enhanced its privileged status as a group. On an individual basis, party members.h.i.+p provides access to a network of informal contacts within the power and control structure, which can open many doors and win many favors.

Skilled manual workers const.i.tute the top level of the lower social strata. A considerable gap exists in the income, prestige, and commensurate standard of living between the skilled worker and the intelligentsia. The gap can be breached only by acquiring higher education. The skilled worker, however, enjoys considerable material advantages over the lowest levels of society by virtue of his important position in the economy. His prestige, although higher than that of unskilled workers, differs little from that of the lower level white-collar personnel because of the low esteem in which manual work continues to be held.

The level of gradation in material rewards of peasants, unskilled workers, and lower level white-collar personnel is very slight. The difference among these groups is mainly one of prestige and opportunity for advancement. The first step up the social ladder is to leave agriculture and join the industrial labor force. Then, through education and training, one can advance to the various levels of skill and their respective income levels and benefits. Despite their lack of skill, lower level white-collar personnel hold a higher position on the social scale than other unskilled persons, princ.i.p.ally because of the prestige attached to nonmanual work.