Szalo Hamar The Formation Of Ethnic Minority Identities

Szaló, Csaba, Hamar Eleonóra. 2006. „The Formation of Ethnic Minority Identities and their Social Inclusion“ Tomáš Sirovátka et al. The Challenge of Social Inclusion: Minorities and Marginalized Groups in Czech Society.Brno: Barrister and Principal. pp. 245-266. ISBN 80-87029-06-2

245

THE FORMATION OF ETHNIC MINORITY IDENTITIES AND THEIR SOCIAL INCLUSION

Csaba Szaló and Eleonóra Hamar

Introduction “Czech society”, or, more precisely, society located in the territory currently governed by the Czech state, is multiethnic, multireligious and multilingual in its character. This is a result not (only) of contemporary social processes like globalisation and trans-regional migration, but also, from a historical point of view, of the ethnic composition of local inhabitants in Czech towns and villages which was always diverse, in spite of the many nationalist movements and dramatic historical changes in the last century. For example, although a significant part of local Jewish and Roma populations was forced into exile or exterminated by the Nazi regime during the Second World War, and a vast majority of German population was displaced from the territory of the re-established Czechoslovakia in the immediate post-war period, Czech society did not lose its multiethnic character completely. In contemporary Czech society there are a number of discourses and institutions that claim to represent different ethnic collectivities. Official government statistics (e.g. censuses) highlight the large number of nonCzech nationals living within the Czech Republic. Quite significantly, a Governmental Council for National Minorities (Rada vlády pro národnostní menšiny) was established in order to deal with issues related to ethnic minority groups in Czech society. There are several civic associations that cultivate and preserve their members’ ethnic identity such as the Hungarian and Bulgarian clubs (for a list of institutions and civil associations related to ethnic minorities living in Czech society see appendix). There are many newspapers and journals published in languages other than Czech, e.g. Slovak Listy or Russian Russkaja Čechija (for a list of periodicals related to ethnic minorities living in Czech society see appendix). There are stores with books, music and food such as Russian Ruský salón in Prague and

246

Csaba Szaló and Eleonóra Hamar

Vietnamese ethnic markets for customers of the given ethnic identities. Finally, we can mention specific ethno-economic institutions such as small Arab exchange offices, Vietnamese and Chinese buffets with beer and noodles and networks of so-called “clients” co-ordinating thousands of semilegal Ukrainian construction workers. The above mentioned discourses and institutions do not only demonstrate the existence of various ethnic collectivities but, at the same time, reinforce the ethnic identity of persons who make use of them. It is from this perspective that we will focus here on the formation of social identities of minority groups in the ethnically diverse social space of the Czech Republic. Rather than concentrating on the demographic description of ethnically defined groups and populations we will instead map the role these institutions and discourses play in the processes of ethnic identity formation (Brubaker 1996).1 We will focus on the practical constitution of ethnicity as a constitutive element of ethnic identities. First, terminology should be clarified. In this text, we use the term “ethnic identity” as a category of analysis (Brubaker 1992). We apply this category in order to understand how identities are formed by institutions and discourses which represent ethnic groups, minorities, and nations. Ethnic identities – similarly to religious or sub-cultural identities – can be defined as specific forms of social identities which typify persons as elements of specific collectivities (Schutz, Luckmann 1973; Berger, Luckmann 1967). Consequently, we treat terms such as “ethnic group”, “minority” and “nation” as typificatory categories of practice. From the sociological point of view these practical categories representing differences and distinctions are not acceptable as interpretative, analytical categories for sociological understanding (Bourdieu 1992; Bourdieu, Wacquant 1992). Being usually codified in political and public discourses, as well as in common sense, they should be treated rather as signs of power relationships than as adequate descriptions of social reality.

1 The social reality of these institutions and discourses is a more relevant indicator of ethnic diversity than official statistics about the size of ethnically categorised populations. Under social conditions of globalisation it is not useful to conceive society as a population of permanently settled citizens. When we speak about Czech society, we have to take account also of foreigners with a long-term residence, illegal and semi-legal foreigners as well as short time visitors like tourists. Semilegal workers and short-term visitors as individuals may only spend days or months “in the society,” nevertheless, as a social force, as a cultural phenomenon and an economic input they form a permanent part of local institutions and discourses.

THE FORMATION OF ETHNIC MINORITY IDENTITIES AND THEIR...

247

The field of ethnicity: taxonomic differences and hierarchical distinctions The identity-forming mechanism of institutions and discourses reveals itself in concrete social events. While it seems that the processes of forming ethnic identity are usually associated primarily with minorities’ social events, we point out that the discursive forming of minority ethnic identities is inseparably linked to dominant ethnic identities. In addition, the way minority ethnic identities are constructed in hegemonic discourses has an often unrecognised impact on the dominant ethnic identities since discourses constitute taxonomic differences and hierarchical distinctions whose symbolic consequences cannot be limited only to minority identities. The cultural festival “Multicultural Brno” organised by a civic association (MIP) in Brno in years 2001-2003 serves as a good example of a social event in which discursive mechanisms of social identity forming are disclosed. To explain these mechanisms, we shall concentrate on an exhibition that took place in a prestigious Moravian Gallery in the centre of Brno in 2001.2 Using 18 panels, the exhibition represented the history and the present of certain ethnic minorities living in Brno. In addition, the presence of these minorities was illustrated by exhibited art work by “ethnic minority children”. Along with Armenians, Bulgarians, Croats, Hungarians, Germans, Poles, Roma, Greeks, Slovaks and Jews, two religious minority organisations – the Islamic Foundation and the Russian Orthodox Church – were included in this exemplification of the multicultural character of Brno. The exhibition did not claim to provide a detailed portrayal of minorities’ lifestyles; the arrangement of panels rather emphasised the emblematic representations of the minorities’ ethnic specificities. It was clear from the exhibition setting that the organisers attempted merely to point out and exemplify the diversity of “neighbouring cultures within one city.” It is with the help of the exhibition catalogue that we can reconstruct the meanings that were articulated in the organisers’ discourse. The catalogue stresses that the exhibition stemmed from their personal experiences of the lack of public knowledge of the actual ethnic diversity in Brno. More precisely the organisers intended the exhibition to challenge the ignorance of those 2 The following interpretation is not intended to be a normative critique of the exhibition and of the festival in general. We acknowledge the organisers’ effort to counter ethnocentric attitudes of the so-called general public. It is clear to us that they were obliged to express their idea in a form that was comprehensible to the general public and thus they had to be sensitive to widely shared preconceptions. However, it is precisely this feature that makes the exhibition analytically useful and relevant for our purposes. It serves as a kind of discursive microcosm enabling us to reveal symbolic constructions that are characteristic of other institutions and discourses, too.

248

Csaba Szaló and Eleonóra Hamar

who were unaware of the presence of other “ethnic minorities” than the Roma living alongside “the majority society” in Brno. The exhibition was explicitly built on the assumption that the knowledge of a shared past and the recognition of the present ethnic diversity will improve “the coexistence of the majority society with ethnic minorities.” Several aspects of this event are of particular importance for the construction of ethnic identities. Firstly, it is the manner of classification which rules the discourse of the event. In other words, it is the way in which multicultural diversity is mapped. The exhibition apparently represented and celebrated Brno cultural diversity by focusing on ethnic and religious minorities living in the city. However, the assumption that the exhibition was articulated in a discourse that conceives of multicultural society in terms of ethnic and religious diversity is mistaken. The notion of multicultural society, as it is expressed in the exhibition’s discourse, does not have a dual (i.e. multiethnic and multireligious) character. Even if social identities are conceived both in ethnic and religious forms3, it is ethnic identities that are represented as constitutive of cultural diversity. The significance of religious identities seems derived from their role in the reproduction of ethnic identities. Both the Islamic Foundation and the Russian Orthodox Church were included in the exhibition because they play a major role in some ethnic minorities’ culture. The exhibition discourse represents cultural diversity as if it was essentially ethnic diversity. This assumption clarifies why other churches and religious movements were missing from the exhibition and why they were unthinkable within this discourse as components of multicultural society. The exhibition’s discourse rules out the possibility to situate the historically dominant churches in the same semantic field with ethnic minority institutions. Along with the historically dominant churches there were other subjects whose absence was symptomatic. The Czechs and Moravians apparently were not incorporated into the field of cultural diversity. They had no panels in the exhibition; still, these ethnic identities were present under the pseudonym of “the majority society” (used by the organisers in the exhibition catalogue, on the festival website etc.). This pseudonym enables the symbolic displacement – similarly as in the case of dominant religious identities – of dominant ethnic identities from the semantic field in which identities of the ethnic Others are located. This symbolic repositioning reveals the second aspect of the discursive construction of identities – the specific mode of symbolic domination. In other words, it discloses how the field of multicultural diversity is hierarchically structured.

3 Sexual or other sub-cultural forms of social identity are clearly excluded from this discourse of multicultural diversity.

THE FORMATION OF ETHNIC MINORITY IDENTITIES AND THEIR...

249

Statements such as “the coexistence of the majority society with ethnic minorities” articulate the hierarchical structure of relationships in the field of cultural diversity. The field of ethnic identities is divided into segregated spaces of “us” (the majority society) and “them” (minorities). These spaces are not merely segregated but are set hierarchically. One of the subjects of coexistence is positioned into a privileged position as its relationship to the others is treated as decisive. This hierarchy is legitimised by reinterpreting the identity of dominants by means of a pseudo-democratic concept – the majority society. In this manner, the constitutive principle of hierarchy is represented as if it was mere quantity. At the same time, dominant ethnic identities became represented as if they were post-ethnic identities. The pseudonym “the majority society” establishes a symbolical borderline separating dominant identities from the minority ones. The dominant identities are established as distinct from the minority identities on the grounds of the idea that they represent a collectivity that is larger and “higher” than ethnic collectivity. The pseudonym “the majority society” tries to avoid, but at the same time preserves, the hierarchic structure of nationalist discourse that operates with the taxonomy of collectivities grounded in the metanarrative of historical development. According to this nationalist taxonomy, ethnic identities were characteristic only of less developed people while the national identity is conceived as more than ethnic, i.e. as national identity. The pseudonym “the majority society” represents a dominant social identity that is claimed to be distinct from the minorities’ ethnic identities. In fact, it represents Czech national identity. The crucial question is whether this particular form of the Czech national identity (as it is articulated in discourses on “the majority society”) is more than an ideological representation of a dominant Czech ethnic identity. Our interpretation of the exhibition shows how a particular discourse constitutes taxonomic differences and hierarchical distinctions at the same time. One of the central themes represented by the exhibition’s discourse was ethnic collectivity. Both taxonomic differences and hierarchical distinctions were constructed in reference to the symbolic attribute of ethnicity. In accordance with this, multicultural diversity (using the example of Brno) was represented as ethnic diversity. The hierarchy between dominant and minority cultures was embodied in the distinction between ethnic identities which have already transcended ethnicity and those which are merely ethnic or still trapped in ethnicity. The central paradox of this hierarchical distinction lies in the fact that the dominant social identity claims to be ethnic, yet more-than-ethnic at the same time. It is, however, crucial for our argument’s sake that ethnicity constitutes a frame of reference both for minority and dominant identities. In order to analyse the formation of minority ethnic identities it is always necessary also to speak about the formation of dominant ethnic identities.

250

Csaba Szaló and Eleonóra Hamar

The complex relationships among various ethnic identities constitute the “field of ethnicity.”4 As should be clear from the above analysed example, the dominant and minority ethnic identities are both present in this field. To understand, as well as to set up, the discussed exhibition requires a certain acquaintance with the field of ethnicity. We suppose that both the organisers of and the visitors to the exhibition had a particular sense of ethnicity which enabled them to enter this social field, to be able to play the game and to get involved in it.5 In the text below, we seek to understand what this sense of ethnicity is, how it works as a social construction and in what sense it can be an intersubjective product of institutions and discourses. The sense of ethnicity: the practical knowledge of ethnic attributes The sense of ethnicity can best be characterised as an act of classification practised by social actors themselves. If we, as sociologists, want to understand how the field of ethnic identities works, that is if we want to theorise about the formation of ethnic identities, we have to take into account the practical knowledge of society produced and used by social actors themselves (Bourdieu 1990). The sense of ethnicity as a form of practical knowledge is present not only in the ways we imagine the society and world around us, in narratives about ourselves and others, in our everyday social interactions, but also in social system institutions such as censuses, questionnaires and administrative practices. Through these practices, society is commonly conceived of and experienced as a space of ethnic relations, as a field of ethnic identities. In this practical sense, society is a space where (we) the Czechs and (they) the Roma live, where (we) the Slovaks and (they) the Hungarians struggle, where (we) the Hungarians and (they) the Jews work hard. In its elementary form, the sense of ethnicity is present in everyday as well as spontaneous conversations. “Are you already in Iraq?” could a friend ask referring to the recent political situation and she/he would, indeed, mean whether the military troops of the Czech or Hungarian state are already there (War in Iraq in 2003). This question situates a debate about faraway events into the local field of ethnic identities. In this case, the sense of ethnicity as a classificatory act operates with the metonymical function of the personal pronoun “you”, which stands for a whole ethnically conceived collectivity and creates a social bond between a concrete person and the ethnic collectivity she/he is supposed to belong to. The well-known exclamation of a football fan “Who is not jumping, is not a Czech!” constitutes the field of ethnicity via the boundary lines of national football teams and, on the mental level, excludes the possibility of acting contrary to one’s sense of ethnicity. For a Czech to support an Italian football team would be unimaginable in 4 On the concept of fields see Bourdieu (1998) 5 On the concept of interest as illusion see Bourdieu (1998)

THE FORMATION OF ETHNIC MINORITY IDENTITIES AND THEIR...

251

the fan discourse, as far as other than national identities, for example religious identities like Catholicism, were treated as irrelevant. The sense of ethnicity is present also in a seemingly harmless statement “the Jews remember Holocaust victims on this day.” This statement demonstrates the exclusionary character of ethnic classification since its logic of “othering” lies in the presumption that to mourn and remember the Holocaust are ethnically specifiable acts, and, what more, they should be treated as such. To mourn on the Holocaust Remembrance Day out of a shared “sense of humanity” or a “sense of fellow citizenship” is inconceivable according to the ethnic discourse.6 As the above-mentioned examples indicate, the sense of ethnicity can be conceived as a part of doxic experience that treats the experienced state and division of the world as necessary, or, in other words, as natural (Bourdieu, Wacquant 1992). Doxic experience not only represents but also constitutes the world we live in through everyday discourse. Two general, closely related points should be made here. Firstly, it is necessary to emphasise that social actors’ practical knowledge cannot be reduced to a mere reflection of social reality. The sense of ethnicity is not only a product of the recognition that there are ethnic collectivities in the real world, rather the practical knowledge is constitutive of the social reality of ethnic identities. As all forms of knowledge, practical knowledge of ethnicity is also an act of interpretation (or an act of the construction of meaning) using “schemes of thought and expression” (i.e. language) for responding to the challenges of the social world. This process is not thinkable without actors’ constitutive activity. It means that social actors do not react mechanically to their conditions of existence; they respond actively by means of their practical structuring activity. It is then essential to reflect how the knowledge of ethnicity contributes to the social reality of ethnic identities. This leads us to our second point. The knowledge of ethnicity this paper explores is not a theoretical form of knowledge, but a practical one. It means that the knowledge of ethnicity cannot be reduced to theoretical thinking using systematic forms and categories, precisely because the sense of ethnicity is oriented towards practice. It is not produced for the sake of a pure and truthful representation of reality; the criteria of this practical knowledge are not its internal coherence or truthfulness in relation to the objective world. Rather, its criteria of relevance are to be found in its practical usefulness. To put it differently, the sense of ethnicity is present not only in people’s minds but also in their acts – it is embodied in practices which produce both (further) knowledge and institutions. As an internalised scheme of thought and expression the sense of ethnicity is played out continually in 6 All these examples from field notes were collected in the Czech Republic over the last two years, but according to our comparative observations, they could easily illustrate the situation in Central European societies in general.

252

Csaba Szaló and Eleonóra Hamar

the practices of everyday life, similarly as in institutionalised rituals and festive ceremonies. Consequently, the sense of ethnicity is encoded in habitus (Bourdieu 1984), it is a disposition to classify the world and act in the world in a particular manner.7 To speak about the sense of ethnicity as a part of habitus requires a reflection on how social actors’ practical knowledge about ethnicity contributes to their ethnic identity.8 Without this practical knowledge of ethnicity there can be no ethnic identity. The practical relevance of the sense of ethnicity lies in its social effects, its social usefulness and usability. It functions like a guide for basic social orientation. As such, it has weighty consequences for social action, it labels some routes as dangerous, others as good and worth following. Only a limited range of practices, relationships and ideas are identified as adequate; relationships of solidarity and loyalty are only possible in a specifically restricted manner. The sense of ethnicity as an instrument of social orientation defines one’s place in the world by relating her/him to a specific ethnic collectivity. Consequently, the sense of ethnicity defines one’s place as well as that of others. It is exactly this sense of one’s own and other people’s place that constitutes the field of ethnic positions and ethnic borders. The sense of ethnicity operates in accordance with the belief that every person naturally/necessarily has to belong to an ethnic collectivity.9 In this sense, no person finds themselves without an ethnic identity – everyone has her/his own proper place in the field of ethnicity. As an instrument of social orientation, the sense of ethnicity is not merely a sense of ethnic difference, it is a sense of ethnic distinction.10 The sense of distinction demands, as Bourdieu says, “that certain things be brought together and others kept apart, which excludes all misalliances and all unnatural unions – i.e., all unions contrary to the common classification” (Bourdieu 1984: 474). The sense of ethnicity is interrelated with the competency to distinguish between socially appropriate/inappropriate companionships and affinities. This competency to make ethnic distinctions can be compared to the competency required by the practical-aesthetic judgement of taste. The sense of ethnicity, similarly to taste, generates 7 The sense of ethnicity is a disposition that can be developed by particular institutions and discourses into complex ideological forms such as nationalism. 8 Analogically, when speaking about ethnicity as a feature of collectivities, the object of inquiry should include the practical knowledge that members of the given collectivity have about ethnicity. 9 On how ethnic collectivity is imagined in practice see Geertz (1973) and Eriksen (2002). The practical category of ethnicity enables a person to think about oneself and others as members of a quasi-natural collectivity. This quasi-natural collectivity is usually articulated in practical discourses as an object of attachments assumed to be primordial. 10 On the concepts of difference and distinction see Bourdieu (1998)

THE FORMATION OF ETHNIC MINORITY IDENTITIES AND THEIR...

253

certain judgements about what is likely and what is unlikely. When we claim that the sense of ethnicity is not merely a sense of difference but a sense of distinction we point to the hierarchical structure of the field of ethnic identities. Some positions in this field are horizontal but others are ordered hierarchically. Some ethnic identities are treated as equal to “our” ethnic identity but others are treated as qualitatively distinct. As we showed in the introductory analysis of the MIP exhibition, the qualitative distinction can assume various forms in various discourses: it can be a distinction between minorities and the majority society, between nations and ethnic groups, or between historically well developed and less developed nations. The core (usually our) ethnic identity is not automatically to be found at the top of the hierarchy. For instance, Central European national identities are marked by the syndrome of small nations which are not, in their modernist narratives, conceived as positioned at the top of the hierarchy but as slowly moving upward to this position.11 From this presumption it is just a step to a practical assumption that both the existence and the hierarchical distinction of ethnic collectivities are natural/necessary. Thus everyone has his/her proper place in the field of ethnicity which is hierarchically ordered. In summary, the sense of ethnicity, as an instrument of social orientation, operates through practical knowledge of ethnic differences and ethnic distinctions. Therefore a person with an ordinary sense of ethnicity will be competent to recognise other people’s ethnic identity, and will be able to form judgements about ethnic attributes of persons and objects. In other words, the practical knowledge of the ethnic field consists in the competence to regard certain attributes of persons and objects as ethnically relevant. These judgements can be regarded as modes of stigmatisation. If we understand how stigmatisation works we can easily understand the working of the sense of ethnicity, too. Stigmatisation is a practice of classification built around a core feature (stigma), which is treated as essential for the identity of a given person and their envisaged future behaviour (Goffman 1986). The practice of stigmatisation isolates a specific attribute from all other attributes which are classified as unimportant or even remain unrecognised. Similarly, the sense of ethnicity identifies persons as members of an ethnic collectivity on the basis of certain attributes. The recognition of ethnic attributes is always based on an interpretative selection from a huge set of potentially available attributes. Behind this selective classification lies a shared knowledge that can be revealed through a phenomenon termed by Bourdieu (1984) the pertinence principle. It can be observed, for example, in discursive events in which listeners spontaneously affirm the relevance of the labelling 11 Alternatively, in anti-modernist narratives, a substitutive moral hierarchy is constructed. The impossibility to reach the top of the power-based hierarchy is compensated for by a sense of moral superiority on the part of the sufferers (see Brubaker 1992; Brubaker 1996; Verdery 1996; Schulze 2003).

254

Csaba Szaló and Eleonóra Hamar

judgement expressed by the speaker. Jokes about Gypsies or Jews (present also in current everyday conversations or media shows in Czech society) operate on the basis of this principle. These jokes work only in reference to a shared background knowledge of typical behaviour, personal characteristics, bodily features and habits of those who are the objects of mockery. Only those who share this knowledge can decode the joke and laugh at it. In Central European societies, specific ethnic identity is usually recognised in reference to a person’s language performance, “body image” and/or symbolic representations of descent.12 Judgements classifying persons in reference to their language performance do not require merely the competence to recognise particular ethnic or national languages but usually also the competence to recognise foreign or regional accents, and a limited vocabulary usage. The competence to classify a person in reference to her/his “body image” cannot be reduced to classificatory judgements about their physical body. It is more appropriate to speak about the recognition of social and cultural inscriptions on a person’s physical body, about the classification of body as part of the person’s habitus. We usually do not meet our ethnic others naked. In the practice of ethnic recognition, clothes, hairstyle and appearance are inseparable from pure physical body because they are equally relevant objects of judgements. The last form of competence is related to the recognition of symbolic representations of descent. These can be names, self-identity expressions present in life-stories or everyday conversations, administrative information about personal identity13 contained in documents (a birth certificate, an identity card, a passport etc.). These symbolic representations serve to confirm the ethnic identity attributed to a person in reference to her/his language performance and/or body image. However, in some cases, these symbolic representations point to a different ethnic identity than that indicated by the person’s language performance or body image. Such cases are particularly important for us because they show that recognition of ethnic identity is not independent of institutions that mark persons with identity signs, and, even more importantly, it is not independent of discourse that demands sincerity of self-expression.14 12 The authors studied the processes of ethnic identity formation on the basis of a narrative analysis of autobiographical interviews with second generation Jews who currently live in the Czech Republic and Hungary (Hamar 2002a; Hamar 2002b) and qualitative interviews focused on cultural assimilation practices of Hungarians and Roma living in the Czech and Slovak Republics (Szaló 2002; Szaló 2004). 13 On the conceptualisation of the difference between self-identity and personal identity see Goffman (1986). 14 On the sociology of social identity formation, especially on the discursive formation of ethnic identities see Szaló (2003a, 2003b) and Hamar (2003).

THE FORMATION OF ETHNIC MINORITY IDENTITIES AND THEIR...

255

The constitution of the sense of ethnicity: the symbolic power of institutions and discourses There is no sense of ethnicity without the competence to recognise other people’s ethnic identity. This competence requires a practical knowledge of ethnic attributes. Both this competence and practical knowledge are produced and cultivated in particular institutions and discourses. People are not born with the competence to recognise specific ethnic or national languages or a foreign and regional accent. Rather, such competence is acquired in the processes of socialisation. Similarly, the practices of language performance, attributes of “body image” as well as symbolic representations of descent are objects of practical knowledge that is cultivated in discourses and transferred to the young generation through institutions of socialisation. Therefore if we are to understand how the sense of ethnicity is constructed we need to focus on discourses that articulate practical knowledge of ethnic attributes and on institutions that transmit this practical knowledge to the young generation. Perhaps equally important seems to be the question how this practical knowledge is reproduced in everyday life. We claim that the family, peer groups, school as well as mass communication media play a significant role in this process. Thus concrete ethnic identities and, on a more general level, a shared sense of ethnicity are formed at the same time. The link between the sense of ethnicity and institutionalised forms of knowledge is disclosed in ambivalent situations when judgements related to ethnic identities become uncertain, that is in situations when individual ethnic attributes are not easily recognisable and the so-called mixed ethnic descent is involved. In these cases – when the pertinence principle does not work and judgements about ethnic identity are not obvious –, the judgements have to be justified, a part of the reason being that, in these obscure cases, judgements and justifications can be challenged by other participants in the discourse. What will be the assumed ethnic identity of a person from a mixed marriage, for example, with a Roma mother and a Czech father, or of a person whose parents are classified as Hungarian and Czech? In these cases, judgements draw on discourses of expert knowledge or institutionally ascribed labels as present in personal documents. Usually, one of the “original” ethnic identities is erased and a purified descent line is constructed.15 Persons are forced to choose or are simply classified by institutions as belonging to only one of their dual “original” ethnic identities. These cases reveal that not only that institutions and discourses register and describe ethnic identity, they are actually constitutive of these social identities. 15 On the fear of ambivalence and its relation to modernity in general see Bauman (1991).

256

Csaba Szaló and Eleonóra Hamar

However, it is not only the ethnic identity of the Other that can be ambivalent. A sense of ambiguity can be found in self-identity narratives when a person either unexpectedly discovers her/his dual descent line, or tries to resolve the dilemma of her/his authentic ethnic belonging. A change of the family name is a good example of a possibility to gain a new ethnic identity through cultural assimilation and be adopted into a new ethnic collectivity in Central Europe. Nevertheless, for the second or third generation assimilates, authentic ethnic origin is in many cases a matter for an inquiry. Also these cases show that institutions and discourses (here in the form of expert knowledge or nostalgic narratives circulating in ethnic groups) can greatly facilitate coping with a potential identity crisis.16 From the sociological perspective, it is crucial how these forms of knowledge and the institutions that help to settle identity-related dilemmas are constituted. Therefore we have to turn our attention to institutional structures of modernity, more precisely to the modern strategy of national unification. The strategy of national unification plays a crucial role in the cultivation of the particular ethnic identities as well as of the general sense of ethnicity in Central Europe. This strategy not only played an important role in the past, it is of analogous importance today, too. The sociological discourse acknowledges the creative role that local national movements of the 19th and early 20th century played in the constitution of national identities in Central Europe – national identities were invented by the nationalist movements as ethnic identities. Besides the formative phase of invention, also the phase of identity reproduction has to be acknowledged. To focus on the reproductive phase of the national unification strategy means to concentrate on the institutions and discourses which cultivate, replicate and preserve these national identities in the form of ethnic identities – that is to study how the strategy of national unification constitutes the field of ethnicity. It is evident that apart from national movements, these institutions and discourses also include institutions and discourses governed by the state and controlled by commercial markets. One of the key components of the strategy of national unification is the linguistic and cultural unification of society. Against local dialects, cultures and identities it is the primacy of national language, culture and identity that is promoted. This strategy subordinates traditional local cultures and identities by reinterpreting them. Local cultures and identities are mythologised as authentic sources of culture and moved into the past as exotised folklore. They are treated as signs of authenticity that have to be preserved as museum exhibits, rather than cultivated as an appropriate basis for modern national development. It is not only linguistic unification but even the whole of cultural unification that are subject to normalisation. National institutions and discourses are promoted and established both in 16 On expert knowledge and self-identity see Giddens (1991).

THE FORMATION OF ETHNIC MINORITY IDENTITIES AND THEIR...

257

the sense of “national as territorial” (present anywhere in the territory of a given state) and national in the sense of the nationalist ideology (treating nations as anthropomorphic subjects and privileging national identity as an ultimate ground for loyalty and solidarity). National normalisation means nation-wide (territorial) dissemination of particular forms of knowledge, practice and identity – for example by inventing a national culture of memory institutionalised in museums and memorials. Further, the development of an institutional field of administration and education as well as the formation of nation-wide commercial and labour markets is crucial in this process. The circulation of discourses, texts, books and newspapers exemplifies the normality of ethnic identities. For instance, discourses on history and literature – that represent the history and literary field in a particular ethnic mode – play a crucial role in cultivating the sense of ethnicity among students at basic and secondary schools. To deconstruct the sense of ethnicity we can proceed with questions that reveal institutionalised forms of knowledge behind actors’ classificatory judgements: How did you discover that you are Jewish?17 Who told you that you are Roma? How do you know that your neighbour is Bulgarian? How do you know that you are of Czech descent? How do you know what it means to be Hungarian? Where did you gain your knowledge of the Vietnamese mentality? These questions cannot be answered without participating in specific discourses that produce knowledge of the field of ethnicity and without accepting the institutionalised authority of such knowledge. Thus when we speak about discourses and institutions we also speak about a circulation of practical knowledge of ethnic differences and distinctions influenced from the positions of power. The double face of social inclusion: institutional integration and symbolic exclusion Both national unification strategies and multicultural strategies of social inclusion necessarily reproduce the field, as well as the sense of ethnicity. The processes of social inclusion are inevitably conditioned by the relative closeness of particular ethnic identities within the field of ethnicity. Examples of intermarriage and cultural assimilation show that particular ethnic identities are open to one another in their specific ways – particular ethnic borders selectively close and open.18 Social inclusion is not possible without a modification of the relationship among particular ethnic identities. Political strategies of social inclusion through integrating minority ethnic 17 See Erős et al. (1985). 18 On the relative closeness of various ethnic identities in relation to cultural assimilation and social inclusion see Alexander (1988) and Laitin (1998).

258

Csaba Szaló and Eleonóra Hamar

identities inevitably modify the whole structure of the field of ethnicity. If this restructuration of the field does not occur then – from a sociological point of view – we cannot speak about social inclusion. In the text below, we demonstrate how discourses and institutions of social inclusion reproduce the sense of ethnicity. If minority ethnic identities are successfully adapted (by effort of minority activists) to the sense of ethnicity present in dominant discourses and institutions then they have a good chance of social inclusion. We illustrate the relationship between the processes of social inclusion and the reproduction of the sense of ethnicity on the example of the institution of Roma advisors and assistants. The institution of Roma advisors (romský poradce) and Roma assistants (romský asistent) was established by the Czech government in 1997. The title “Roma advisor and assistant” indicates both that the advisor is routinely a person with a Roma ethnic identity and that he/she is to advise and assist the local Roma community (Sirovátka, Hamar 2001). The official social function of Roma advisors and assistants is to integrate the Roma population into Czech society by solving the (mostly social) problems of the Roma community. They facilitate communication and mediate between local administration and local Roma communities. Advisors are employed by local administration, while assistants function as social workers in schools and Roma neighbourhoods. Other civil servants employed by local government administration tend to pass all issues related to persons with a Roma ethnic identity to these advisors and assistants, regardless that before this institution was established, these tasks and responsibilities had been in their competence. This transfer of competence takes place spontaneously, in other words, it is not a result of an organisational restructuration of local administrations. The institution of Roma advisors and assistants latently reproduces the sense of ethnicity. It reproduces the practical knowledge of the difference and distinction between Czech and Roma ethnic identities. Moreover, it reproduces not only the Roma clients’ and assistants’ sense of ethnicity, but also that of persons with Czech and other non-Roma ethnic identities. Firstly, civil servants who work for the same local administration have a direct experience of the institution of Roma advisors and assistants. Secondly, through hearing or reading about the work of Roma advisors and assistants other persons have an indirect experience of the institution. In both cases, this institution reproduces the sense of ethnicity only if it bears some relevance19 to these persons. In the case of local civil servants, the institution may be relevant at least with respect to their organisational interest. They are clearly interested in transferring their work tasks to the newcomers. But what relevance can this institution have to persons who 19 On structures of relevance see Berger and Luckmann (1967).

THE FORMATION OF ETHNIC MINORITY IDENTITIES AND THEIR...

259

have only indirect experience of it? What interest may these persons have in this institution? Accordingly, the sense of ethnicity – to apply Bourdieu’s wordplay – as a selective attribution of ethnic attributes, is inseparable from material and ideological interests. The reason why some attributes are interesting for us is never completely independent of our interests in observing these attributes as relevant (Bourdieu 1984). More precisely, it does not mean that particular persons necessarily have to gain personal advantages from recognising some of other persons’ specific attributes. Rather, these interests are articulated in discursive structures of taxonomic differences and hierarchical distinctions which are inherent in structural positions in a particular social field. In our example, these interests are related to structural positions in the field of ethnicity. Minority ethnic identities can be defined by their subordinated structural position in the field of ethnicity. The sense of ethnicity which treats some collectivities as minorities is articulated from the perspective of dominant positions. However, this dominant perspective is not necessarily unchallenged. Social identities are not only the moving forces behind social struggles, their definition and representation is also an instrument of social struggle (Bourdieu 1992). Moreover, this classificatory struggle is not only a struggle of the dominant against the subordinated – who are usually regarded as powerless –; it also includes tricks and practices of resistance on the part of the subordinated. The practices of ethnic identity formation are thus interrelated with the ideological and material interests of all participants in the field of ethnicity. More precisely, the practical knowledge of ethnicity is constituted in line with the structural positions of its bearers. The question thus emerges: whose interest is it to represent these collectivities as ethnic minorities? Another interesting feature of the institution of Roma advisors and assistants consists in its potential to transgress the dominant sense of ethnicity which treats the Roma as a homogenous collectivity. This presumption of homogeneity is not addressed openly at a discursive level, rather it is transgressed by the institutional practice of privileging local people in holding the position of Roma advisors and assistants. This institutional practice can, in this case, face the local ethnic diversity of communities officially classified by the umbrella term: Roma. For this practice, it is more important to guarantee the performance of the institution using local tactics than to challenge the homogenising discourse by employing a reform strategy. This homogenisation of differences and distinctions is a core feature of the sense of ethnicity working both in official institutions and in the life world. Some differences and distinctions – such as those between Vlach Roma and Rumungre – are interpreted as internal to the collectivity and thus as unimportant. Local minority cultures can constitute their own sense of ethnicity as different from the officially institutionalised one. Their practical knowledge of ethnic identities can

260

Csaba Szaló and Eleonóra Hamar

stress differences and distinctions that are perceived as irrelevant from the dominant perspective.20 The focus on group boundaries, the ignorance of internal divisions and the stress on external differences which characterise homogenising classifications are not necessarily instruments of exclusion. This homogenising effect cannot be restricted to ethnic classifications since discourses forming citizenship identities provide this homogenising practice by claiming equal rights for persons belonging to the political community. The inclusion of citizens into the political community depends on the ignorance of particular internal divisions among those to be included. Similarly, the sense of ethnicity can constitute exclusions and inclusions at the same time. From a sociological perspective, we need to point out the symbolic power of that particular form of the sense of ethnicity that conceives ethnic collectivities as biologically or genetically grounded. The ideology of pure ethnic descent may be false from the scientific point of view, nevertheless, it has real social effects. The practical effect of this ideology is to deny choice and free will regarding ethnic identity. The sense of ethnicity based on the practical knowledge of ethnic purity – even if it is a myth – can contribute to what the ideology of pure ethnic descent claims there exists, that is ethnically closed communities. This can be done, for example, through marriage preferences and through influencing children’s marriage choices. To put it differently, the assumed reality of ethnic descent is in fact a utopia of a pure ethnic community. It is something that ideological discourse discovers and identifies in the past as an authentic value, but, in fact, it is a normative vision that has to be realised in the future. The trick of ideology is the following: the description of the past is in fact a prescription for the future. However, it is important to stress that this utopian ideology of pure ethnic descent is present both in the dominant and minority ethnic discourses. The field of ethnic identities in Central Europe is structured by judgements about who looks and/or speaks differently or has a different ethnic origin. From the perspective of minority cultures´ social inclusion it is crucial to what extent these ethnic attributes are recognised and treated as significant, more precisely to what extent and in what contexts these attributes are treated merely as significant signs of ethnic differences or rather as distinctions.21 The sense of ethnicity will probably be always present in Central European societies, however, there is still a theoretical possibility 20 This homogenisation was typical also of colonial institutions which classified various non-European ethnic identities with etnonymes like Chinese, Indian, Indonesian. See Anderson (1991). This practice of homogenisation can be detected in discourses on trans-regional migration. 21 Particular institutions and discourses differ perhaps in the extent to which a person can ignore the ethnic identity that others ascribe to her/him. On the logic of stigma, information control and passing see Goffman (1967).

THE FORMATION OF ETHNIC MINORITY IDENTITIES AND THEIR...

261

that ethnic identity of others is recognised, yet ignored. This is made possible by the existence of such social interactions that establish solidarity among actors having differing ethnic identities, for instance on the basis of shared faith in the possibility of creating a godly and virtuous earthly existence, or in the existence of good and evil spirits in everydayness. It can also be on the basis of shared hatred for those who do not abide by the word they have given or for foreign invaders, on the basis of shared belief in the value of individual freedom or family life, shared passion for certain sports or sports clubs etc. In other words there are other senses of difference and distinction in society which constitute other than ethnic forms of social identities. There are institutions and discourses in which ethnic distinctions are overwritten by social identities grounded in nation, religion, gender, family, kinship, region, occupation, education, political ideology and honour. Nevertheless, the question remains whether the dominant institutions and discourses will privilege the sense of ethnicity over other social identities. The practices of social inclusion are double-faced. On the one hand, they lead to institutional integration of ethnic minorities. At the same time, though, they lead to the minorities’ symbolic exclusion from the Czech national identity. Discourses in which Czech citizens with the Roma or Polish ethnic identity are not treated as Czechs exclude the possibility of a dual Czech-Roma or Czech-Polish identity. Certainly, this is the case only if the Czech national identity is conceived purely as an ethnic identity. The formation of minority and dominant identities are inseparable, they are constituted in the same discursive and institutional field. The sense of ethnicity dominating Czech society until recently, has led to an ethnic delimitation of the Czech national identity. That is to say, it apprehends minorities as ethnic collectivities and conceives the cultural diversity of Czech society in the form of ethnic diversity. This form of social inclusion has an unintended consequence: by treating the Czech national identity as a dominant ethnic identity, all other – that is minority ethnic – identities are excluded from the imagined community of the Czech nation. From the perspective of social inclusion, the most important question is whether the dual – ethnic and political – character of the Czech national identity will be indicated in discourses of symbolic power. In other words, the question is whether official discourses and institutions are able to articulate the difference between: “Czech nationality” conceived as an ethnic identity and “Czech citizenship” conceived as a political identity.22 The latent symbolic exclusion of non-ethnic Czechs from the Czech nation – in this case 22 The objectified representations of ethnic and national identity in emblems, flags, and rituals are impossible to separate in Central Europe. The Hungarian flag is the objectified representation of Hungarian national identity in the sense of citizenship but also of the Hungarian ethnic identity, for instance in a minority position.

262

Csaba Szaló and Eleonóra Hamar

imagined as an ethnic community – has recently been counterbalanced by an inclusive political-legal provision that stresses the non-ethnic character of Czech citizenship and, consequently, the political character of the Czech nation – in this case imagined as a political community of citizens.

References Alexander, J. C. 1988. “Core Solidarity, Ethnic Outgroup, and Social Differentiation” In Action and Its Environment. Toward a New Synthesis. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 78-106. Anderson, B. 1991. Imagined Communities. London: Verso. Bauman, Z. 1991. Modernity and Ambivalence. Cambridge: Polity Press. Berger, P. L., Luckmann, T. 1967. The Social Construction of Reality. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction. A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Bourdieu, P. 1990. The Logic of Practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Bourdieu, P. 1992. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bourdieu, P., Wacquant, L. J. D. 1992. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Bourdieu, P. 1998. Practical Reason. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Brubaker, R. 1992. Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Brubaker, R. 1996. Nationalism Reframed. Nationhood and the National Question in the New Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Eriksen, T. H. 2002. Ethnicity and Nationalism. London: Pluto Press. Erős, F., Kovács, A. and Lévai, K. 1985. “Hogyan jöttem rá, hogy zsidó vagyok?” Medvetánc 2 (3): 129-144. Geertz, C. 1973. “The Integrative Revolution: Primordial Sentiments and Civic Politics in the New States” In Geertz, C. (ed) The Interpretation of Cultures. London: Fontana, pp. 255-310. Giddens, A. 1991. Modernity and Self-Identity. Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Cambridge: Polity Press. Goffman, E. 1967. Interaction Ritual. New York: Pantheon. Goffman, E. 1986. Stigma. New York: Touchstone. Hamar, E. 2002a. “Nalézání a vynalézání sebe v příběhu: o narativní konstrukci židovských identit”. Biograf 27 (1): 29-49. Hamar, E. 2002b. “O etnicitě a konstrukci židovských identit v životních příbězích” In Sirovátka, T. (ed) Menšiny a marginalizované skupiny v České republice. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, pp. 197-210. Hamar, E. 2003. “Židovské identity ve světle diskursivních změn” In Sociální Studia 9 – Sociální inkluze. Brno: Masarykova Universita, Fakulta Sociálních Studií, pp. 107-120. Laitin, D. 1998. Identity in Formation. The Russian-Speaking Populations in the Near Abroad. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

THE FORMATION OF ETHNIC MINORITY IDENTITIES AND THEIR...

263

Schulze, H. 2003. Stát a národ v Evropských dějinách. (Staat und nation in der europäischen Geschichte.) Praha: Lidové noviny. Schutz, A., Luckmann, T. 1973. The Structures of the Life-World. Evanston: Northwestern University Press. Sirovátka, T., Hamar, E. 2001. “Romští asistenti a romští poradci: krok k řešení problémů romské komunity”. (Roma Assistants and Roma Advisors: A Step Towards Solving the Problems of the Roma community.) Sociální politika 27 (5): 14-15. Szaló, C. 2002. “Proces kulturní asimilace a konstrukce identity ‘přistěhovalců’” (The Process of Cultural Assimilation and Identity Construction of ‘Immigrants’) In Sirovátka, T. (ed) Menšiny a marginalizované skupiny v České republice. Brno: Masarykova universita, pp. 179-196. Szaló, C. 2003a. “Sociologie formování sociálních identit” (The Sociology of Social Identity Formation) In Szaĺó, C., Nosál, I. (eds) Mozaika v re-konstrukci. Brno: MPU, pp. 13-36. Szaló, C. 2003b. “Etno-nostalgie versus modernita: konstrukce sociální identity menšinového maďarství” (Ethno-Nostalgia versus Modernity: Social Identity Construction of Minority Hungarians) In Szaĺó, C., Nosál, I. (eds) Mozaika v rekonstrukci. Brno: MPU, pp. 214-234. Szaló, C. 2004. “Svádění ke kulturní asimilaci a resistence vůči ní: o dynamice sociální inkluze maďarské menšiny jižního Slovenska.” (The seduction of cultural assimilation and the resistance against it: On the dynamics of social inclusion of the Hungarian minority in Southern Slovakia.) In Sirovátka, T. (ed) Sociální exkluze a sociální inkluze menšin a marginalizovaných skupin. Brno: Masarykova univesita, pp. 217-234. Verdery, K. 1996. What Was Socialism and What Comes Next. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Appendix: Institutions and civil associations related to ethnic minorities living in Czech society: Armenian: Armenský dům (Mladá Boleslav). Bulgarian: Bulharská kulturně osvětová organizace Sv. Cyrila a Metoděje (Praha), Hyshove (Praha), Sdružení pro Bulharsko (Brno), Bulharské kulturně osvětové sdružení (Brno), Zaedno (Praha), Vazraždane (Praha). Belorussian: Osvětový a vzdělávací spolek Skaryna (Praha), Svaz Bělorusů v zahraničí (Praha). Chinese: Krajanské sdružení Číňanů žijících v ČR (Praha). Croatian: Sdružení občanů chorvatské národnosti (Grygov). English speakers/American: Expats (Praha). German: Kulturní sdružení občanů německé národnosti v ČR (Brno), Německé kulturní sdružení, region Brno (Brno)., Německý jazykový a kulturní spolek Brno DSKV (Brno), Kulturní združení občanů německé národnosti (Praha), Organizace Němců v západních Čechách (Plzeň), Shromáždění Němců v Čechách, na Moravě a ve Slezku (Praha), Svaz Němců, regionální skupina

264

Csaba Szaló and Eleonóra Hamar

Hřebečsko (Moravská Třebová), Svaz Němců – region Chebsko (Cheb), Svaz Němců – Severní Morava, Orlické hory (Šumperk), Svaz Němců – Liberec, Lužice – Severní Čechy (Liberec), Kruh přátel Německa (Kravaře). Greek: Asociace řeckých obcí v ČR (Bohumín), Lyceum Řekyň (Brno), Hellenika nadační fond (Brno), Řecká obec v Brně (Brno). Hungarian: Svaz maďarů žijících v českých zemích (Praha, Brno, Ostrava, Plzeň, Teplice, Litoměřice), Svaz maďarských studentů-KAFEDIK v Brně (Brno), Klub maďarských studentů AED (Praha), Spolek Iglice Egylet (Praha). Jewish: Federace židovských obcí (Praha), Židovské obce (Praha, Brno, Děčín, Karlovy Vary, Liberec, Olomouc, Ostrava, Ústí nad Labem, Teplice, Plzeň), Bejt Elend (Praha), Pražská židovská otevřená komunita – Bejt Praha (Praha), Bejt Simcha (Praha), Česká unie židovské mládeže (Praha), Židovská liberální unie (Praha), Židovské muzeum v Praze (Praha), Památník Terezín (Terezín). Korean: Česko-korejská křesťanská společnost (Praha). Polish: Kongres Polakůw w RC (Český Těšín), Harcerstwo Polskie w RC (Dolní Lutyně), Klub Polski (Praha), Koło Polskich Kombatantów (Horní Suchá), Macierz Szkolna (Třinec), Miejscowe Koło PZKO Karwina-Nowe Miasto (Karviná), Polonus – Klub Polski w Brnie (Brno), Polski Związek Byłych Więźniów Politycznych (Ostrava), Polskie Towarzystwo Medyczne (Karviná), Polskie Towarzystwo Artystyczne “Ars Musica” (Český Těšín), Polskie Towarzystwo Śpiewacze Collegium Canticorum (Karviná), Polskie Towarzystwo Turystyczno-Sportowe “Beskid Śląski” (Třinec), Polski Związek Kulturalno-Oświatowy (Český Těšín), Stowarzyszenie Dziennikarzy Polskich (Těrlicko), Stowarzyszenie Emerytów Polskich (Horní Suchá), Stowarzyszenie Młodzieży Polskiej w RC (Český Těšín), Stowarzyszenie Osób Pracujących i Uczących się za Granicą (Český Těšín), Stowarzyszenie Rodzina Katyńska (Dolní Lomná), Stowarzyszenie Szkoła Polonijna w Pradze (Praha), Towarzystwo Nauczycieli Polskich (Český Těšín), Towarzystwo Avion (Český Těšín), Zrzeszenie Literatów Polskich (Český Těšín), ZŚM Przyjaźń (Karviná), Gorole (Mosty u Jablunkova), Základní škola s polským jazykem, (Třínec). Roma: Demokratická aliance Romů v České republice (Valašské meziříčí), Dětský hudební a taneční soubor Cikne čhave (Nový Jičín), Komunitní centrum Chánov (Most), Nedrog (Rakovník), Občanské sdružení Romodrom (Praha), Občanské sdružení slovo 21 (Praha), Občanské sdružení Žijeme spolu v 4 ZŠ (Sokolovo), Romská misie (Plzeň) ROS – Klub (Hořice v Podkrkonoší), Romské sdružení občanského porozumění (Nymburk), Romské sdružení (Šluknov), Sdružení dětí a mládeže Romů ČR (Zlín), Společenství Jan 10 (Dolní Ždanov), Společenství Romů na Moravě (Brno), Společenství přátel časopisu Romanu džaniben (Praha), Drom (Brno), Muzeum romské kultury (Brno). Rusin: Společnost přátel Podkarpatské Rusi (Praha, Brno), Folklorní soubor Skejušan (Chomutov). Russian: Artek (Praha), Ruský klub (České Budějovice), Sdružení krajanů a přátel Ruské tradice v ČR (Praha), Sdružení ruských občanů v ČR (Brno), Asociace ruských spolků v České republice (Brno), Ruský institut (Pardubice). Silezian: Matice slezská (Opava).

THE FORMATION OF ETHNIC MINORITY IDENTITIES AND THEIR...

265

Slovak: Obec Slovákov v Brně (Brno), ČeskoSlovenská scéna (Praha), Folklorní sdružení PÚČIK (Brno), Folklorní soubor Šarvanci (Praha), Klub slovenské kultury (Praha), Limbora – slovenské folklórní sdružení (Praha), Obec slováků v ČR (Praha), Slovensko – český klub (Praha), Spolok Detvan (Praha), Ukrainian: Sdružení Ukrajinců a příznivců Ukrainy (Praha), Sdružení Ukrajinek v ČR (Praha), Ukrajinská iniciativa v ČR (Praha), Fórum Ukrajinců (Praha). Vietnamese: Sdružení vietnamsky hovořících občanů ČR (Praha). Yugoslavian: Společnost přítel jižních Slovanů v ČR (Brno). Periodicals related to ethnic minorities living in Czech society, ordered according to publishers’ ethnic identity and/or language of publication: Armenian: Nairi (monthly), Orer (monthly). Bulgarian: Roden glas (information not available), Bulhaři (bimonthly). English: The Prague Tribune (monthly), The Prague Post (weekly). German: Landes-Zeitung (weekly), Prager Volkszeitung (weekly), Brünner Zeitung. cz (online daily). Greek: Kalimera (every second month). Hungarian: Prágai Tükör (five times a year). Italian: La Pagina (monthly). Jewish: Hatikva (monthly in Czech), Roš chodes (monthly in Czech), Maskil (monthly). Korean: Nanumto (monthly). Polish: Glos Ludu (every second day), Zwrot (monthly), Jutrzenka (monthly), Ogniwo (monthly), Nasza Gazetka (fortnightly), Kurier Praski (monthly), Wiarus (four times a year). Roma (we do not know in what kind of “Roma language” are these periodicals published: Romano Kurko (fortnightly), Amaro gendalos (monthly), Kereka – Kruh (monthly), Romano hangos (fortnightly). Russian: Vesti (information not available), Russkaja Čechija (weekly), Čechija Segodňa (monthly), Ogni (monthly), Ruske slovo (monthly). Slovak: Listy (monthly), Dotyky (monthly), Korene (monthly). Ukrainian: Porohy (every fourth month). Vietnamese: Cay Tre (monthly), Vietnamcenter.cz (online daily).