Ethnic Minorities and Inter-ethnic Relations in Context

A Dutch-Hungarian Comparison

Karen Phalet, Antal Orkeny

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9781138701557
• eBook ISBN: 9781351808316
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Sociology
• Index: Social Sciences

This volume is based on papers presented on ethnic minorities and inter-ethnic relations in Hungary and The Netherlands, which were presented and discussed in three conferences and a series of meetings from 1997-1999. This work builds on comparative studies of the rise of a radical right and the mobilization of anti-immigrant feelings. It presents cross-national comparative research, due to the creedence that shifting national angles is a powerful strategic tool with which to correct national bias and to uncover submerged or overlooked aspects of specific national cases. The book brings together contributions from Hungarian and Dutch scholars in the field of ethnic minorities and inter-ethnic relations. The two countries are used as exemplary cases of distinct ethno-political patterns in Central and Western Europe. Combining complementary configurational and dimensional approaches to cross-national comparison, the diverse forms of ethnic relations in Hungary and The Netherlands are analyzed, and competing explanations of ethno-political conflict (or co-ordination) are tested in both national contexts.

1 Ethnic Minorities and Inter-Ethnic Relations: National Configurations and Cross-National Dimensions¹

KAREN PHALET & ANTAL ÖRKÉNY

Across Europe, states are confronted with the challenge of incorporating ethnically diverse populations (Connor, 1994). Ethnic diversity in Europe is the product of two distinct processes, which were concomitant or prior to the process of state building. The first process, the reception of immigrants, gave rise to territorially dispersed but culturally connected communities. The second process refers to the incorporation of territorially concentrated communities in peripheral regions, whose claim to a distinctive culture is most often backed up by a history of (pre-)political self-rule. In the fifties and sixties, the politics of national incorporation were guided by the modernisation hypothesis, which held that the progressive development of universalistic civil societies would naturally entail the disappearance of ethnic particularisms. However, political developments in the early seventies were already suggestive of the rise of ethnic identities as a tool for political mobilisation. Although the politics of ethnic identity is not a new phenomenon, it has, since the fall of the Berlin Wall, gained in its impact to the extent that it is now of crucial political relevance. This new political relevance of ethnic divisions in post Cold War Europe has created an increased interest in comparative studies. Most studies have focused either on ethnic nationalism in Eastern or Central Europe (Codagnone, 1997, 1998), or on immigrant multiculturalism in Western Europe (Favell, 2001). However, cross-national research relating to the ethnic issues of nationalism, migration and multiculturalism in Eastern and Central as well as Western Europe is generally less developed.

A paradox

Building on comparative studies of the rise of a radical right and the mobilisation of anti-immigrant feelings, Kriesi (2001) reflects on the political consequences of world-wide globalisation and European integration in Western Europe. He identifies a profound restructuring of the socio-political space at the turn of the century, which takes the form of a greatly accelerated process of ‘denationalisation’. This has lead to the opening of national boundaries and the ‘unbundling’ of nation-states. In Kriesi’s view, a combination of increased international competition and immigration has created a new global division between winners and losers of denationalisation.² Cutting across the old structural divisions and ideological alignments in post-industrial societies, this dividing line gives rise to a new cleavage structure in European politics. Looking beyond the varying terminologies and typologies of emerging electorates and party profiles, proponents of new-cleavage theories seem to agree on the political significance of this new cultural cleavage. Specifically, converging findings from public opinion and party-elite studies suggest an emerging cleavage, which opposes some degree of national integration and cultural closure to unlimited European or global integration and cultural openness (Gomez-Reino, 2001; Kitschelt, 1995; Sniderman, Peri, de Figueiredo and Piazza, 2000; Swyngedouw, 1992). Global integration may take on different forms, which are commonly referred to as either ‘Americanisation’ or multiculturalism. Whereas Americanisation (or cultural de-differentiation) is in fact the mirror image of multiculturalism, both terms epitomise the loss of a shared, bounded and rooted national culture (Favell, 1998b).

Turning to Eastern-Central Europe, we are struck by an interesting paradox. In Nationalism reframed Brubaker’s (1996) reading of ‘the old New Europe’ reveals a quite different transformation of the socio-political space along national lines. Hence his claim that the late twentieth century has been marked, not by the end of the nation-state, but by a massive shift back to it. This process of ‘nationalisation’ has led to both the redrawing of state boundaries and the ‘un-mixing’ of peoples in Eastern and Central Europe. But it does not end there. Nationalisation sets in motion a self-reproducing process engendering new nationalisms in the wake of old. Brubaker uses parallel case studies of German, Polish and Russian nationalisms, to document the triadic nexus between nationalising states, national minorities and external homelands. From his enlightening analysis, it appears that ethno-political problems and precepts in Eastern-Central Europe typically arise from the challenge of minority nationalism, in conjunction with state and trans-border nationalisms.

A Dutch–Hungarian comparison

The creed of cross-national comparative research is that shifting national angles is a powerful strategic tool with which to correct national biases and to uncover submerged or overlooked aspects of specific national cases. However, the maximum comparativists can hope for, is to successfully exploit crossnational variation in order to construct and test general explanatory theories. Ideally, cross-national comparisons should be informed by clear concepts, rich contexts, strong theories, and multiple data sources (King, Keohane and Verba, 1994). In a less than ideal world however, comparativists run high risks of imposing conceptual frames, using biased measures, or selecting the wrong variables or cases, thereby misconstruing or simply missing the key processes under examination. This book brings together contributions from Hungarian and Dutch scholars in the field of ethnic minorities and inter-ethnic relations. Hungary and the Netherlands are identified here as exemplary cases of distinct ethno-political patterns in Central and Western Europe. Our comparative aim is a modest one. Combining complementary configurational and dimensional approaches to cross-national comparison, the diverse forms of ethnic relations in Hungary and the Netherlands are analysed, and competing explanations of ethno-political conflict (or co-ordination) are tested in both national contexts.

When we set out to study ethnic minorities in Hungary and the Netherlands, we shared an intuition that at least some common processes might be at work behind the seemingly contradictory forces of nationalisation (in Central Europe) and denationalisation (in Western Europe). While both types of political transformation arise from different patterns of ethnic divisions and generate very different political outcomes, they have in common the increased public presence and political relevance of ethnic identities. Could it be that both forms of restructuring of the European space are producing, and are being produced by, similar processes increasing the subjective salience of ethnic divisions? And once ethnic identities and boundaries are made salient, could it be that similar mechanisms are instigating, sustaining and/or containing their political mobilisation? If we are to go beyond a shared intuition of commonality, we are confronted with a double comparative task. Firstly, the distinct national and regional configurations of ethnic challenges and political responses in Hungary and the Netherlands should be examined more closely. Secondly, the explanatory power of general processes that increase the subjective salience and the political mobilisation of ethnic divisions should be tested in both national contexts.

Some limitations

In view of the complicated nature of ethnic divisions, their social construction and political mobilisation, even within a single national context, a cross-national comparison is not an easy undertaking. Not only do Hungary and the Netherlands belong to different regions in Europe, which are characterised by distinct ethno-political patterns, there are also notable national differences in vocabularies, disciplinary traditions and policy approaches. These national differences complicate the search for common concepts and may limit the scope for valid comparison.

While Hungary and the Netherlands are both ethnically diverse countries, they have adopted different national vocabularies to define ethnic problems and inform ethnic policies. For example, Dutch research on migration and multiculturalism is quite common, but one would be hard pressed to find mainstream research on ‘Hungarian multiculturalism.’ Still, in terms of ethnic composition the Netherlands is hardly more multicultural (see Table 1.1 for figures of native Dutch in the 1990 Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (CBS)³ data) than Hungary (see Table 1.2 for figures of non-minority Hungarians in the 1990 census).⁴ Conversely, a term such as ‘magyarisation’ (which refers to a particularly Hungarian form of language assimilation) does not really have an equivalent in recent Dutch history. Still, the Netherlands does pursue language assimilation, for example by organising obligatory language courses for new immigrants (see Entzinger, Chapter 17).

Not only do national vocabularies differ, distinct scholarly traditions further limit the scope of comparison. For example, under the heading of ethnic studies much research attention has been devoted to Hungarian nation formation in the aftermath of the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian empire, as well as to the national question of ethnic Hungarians outside state borders (see Csepeli, Fábián and Sik, Chapter 4) but little attention has been paid to the social opportunities and the ethnic cultures of immigrants. In contrast, extensive research has been conducted in the Netherlands on ethnic identities (see Verkuyten, Chapter 5) and social disadvantage among immigrant minorities (see Veenman, Chapter 12), while other ‘ethnic’ issues such as the fallout from the Dutch colonial experience or the consequences of the Dutch emigration to Australia or Canada have largely been relegated to the past, and hence are studied mostly by historians. Fortunately, both countries share well-established social science research traditions on ethnic prejudice and discrimination. But in the Hungarian case the most stigmatised minorities are definitely Jews and Roma (see Örkény and Szabó, Chapter 7, on minority representations among children; Kovács, Chapter 8, on antisemitism; Enyedi, Erös and Fábián, Chapter 10, on authoritarianism; Székelyi, Csepeli and Örkény, Chapter 11, on anti-‘Gypsy’ attitudes among police). In the Dutch case, notwithstanding a common history of popular and state discrimination against ‘Gypsies’ (Lucassen, Willems mobilisation of and Cottaar, 1998) and Jews (Flap and Croes, 2001; Ultee and Flap, 1996),⁵ the prototypical outsider is the Muslim immigrant (Phalet, Van Lotringen and Entzinger, 2000). Turks and Moroccans, in particular, are at the bottom of the Dutch ethnic hierarchy (Hagendoom, 1995; see Hagendoom, Chapter 2, on stereotypes of ethnic minorities).

Not surprisingly, Hungary and the Netherlands have developed distinctive policy traditions. While Hungary has responded to the challenge of ethnic diversity by granting extensive minority rights (see Kardos, Chapter 18), Dutch legislation does not formally recognise group-specific rights. Conversely, the Hungarian legislation excludes immigrants without Hungarian nationality, but the Netherlands has granted extensive social and political rights to immigrant minorities, including local voting rights as well as the right to religious expression and association (Guiraudon, 2000). Moreover, the Netherlands has developed highly coordinated multicultural policies, which specifically target ethnic minorities with a view to combating social disadvantage and to improving intercultural understanding (see Entzinger, Chapter 17).

A terminological excursion

The field of ethnic and migration studies is fraught with ill-defined terms, which are often used imprecisely or inconsistently to refer to very different concepts and cases (Connor, 1994). Part of the problem is that key terms in social science research, such as nationalism, multiculturalism, and racism/xenophobia…are also used as appraisive and operative tools in political mobilisation and policy making with regard to ethnic issues (Alba and Nee, 1997; Fennema, 1997). As a consequence, these terms bundle analytic concepts together with normative notions or idealised projections of society. Normative precepts may vary greatly between (or even within) national contexts, so that the same term is weighted with very different emotional and attitudinal valences in different contexts. Not only does the meaning of nationality and ethnicity convey a political project, the political status of both concepts is also path-dependent in that the legal and political implications of ethnic or national status are contingent on specific histories of nation formation and institutional reform (Codagnone, 1997).

Ethnic and national categories take on different meanings in Western and Eastern-Central European contexts, which complicate a cross-European comparison of ethno-political issues (Hagendoom, Phalet, Henke and Drogendijk, 1995). In Western Europe the attribute ‘ethnic’ applies predominantly to various categories of immigrants, that may or may not be nationals of the receiving country (e.g. post-colonial versus labour immigration to the Netherlands). In contrast, the attribute ‘national’ is mostly restricted to dominant national groups in the receiving states. Hence, the terms ‘ethnic’ and ‘national’ have come to represent the socio-political disparity between immigrant and host communities in multicultural societies. In Central and Eastern Europe however, the attribute ‘ethnic’ mostly refers to non-immigrant minorities.⁶ In the latter context, ethnic mino...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• List of Contributors
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Ethnic Minorities and Inter-Ethnic Relations: National Configurations and Cross-National Dimensions
• PART I: ETHNIC AND NATIONAL IDENTITIES AND STEREOTYPES
• PART II: ANTISEMITISM AND ANTI-‘GYPSY’ PREJUDICE
• PART III: SPHERES OF EXCLUSION
• PART IV: TOWARDS A POLITICS OF INCLUSION?
• Author Index
• Subject Index