The national and ethnic identifications among Slovak diaspora in Serbia by ERSTE Foundation

2015–2016

ERSTE Foundation Fellowship for Social Research Diasporas, nation states and mainstream societies in Central and Eastern Europe

The national and ethnic identifications among Slovak diaspora in Serbia: stranded in between state and ethnicity? Svetluša Surová

Erste Foundation Fellowship for Social Research for the Year 2015/2016

„Diasporas, nation states and mainstream societies in Central and Eastern Europe.”

Working paper The national and ethnic identifications among Slovak diaspora in Serbia: stranded in between state and ethnicity?

May, 2016

Svetluša Surová©

Svetluša Surová

Erste Foundation Fellowship for Social Research

Working paper

The national and ethnic identifications among Slovak diaspora in Serbia: stranded in between state and ethnicity? Author: Svetluša Surova*

Biographical note Dr. Svetluša Surova is a pat-time lecturer at Department of Political Science, Faculty of Philosophy, Comenius University in Bratislava and she was Research Fellow of Erste Foundation and its Fellowship for Social Research for the Year 2015-2016. Dr. Surova was accepted to prestige international short-term residential programme BIARI 2016- Brown International Advanced Research Institutes and became Alumni of the Institute on Ethnicity, Conflict, and Inequality in Global Perspective at Brown University, Rhode Island, USA. She received her doctorate and graduated with honours in Political Theory at the University of Matej Bell in Banska Bystrica, Faculty of Political Science and International Relations, Department of Political Science. She has won a several awards and scholarship in her career (Fully funded two weak residential programme at BIARI 2016, Rhode Island, USA; Erste Foundation Fellowship for Social Research, 2015-2016; Graduate Scholarship of Slovak Republic 2001-2005; Doctoral Scholarship of Slovak Republic 2005-2008; Short term dissertation research grant, CEEPUS 2 Mobility Grant 2007; Award of Pontis Foundation, Bratislava, Slovakia, Third prize on the 3rd year of the Competition for the best thesis on the topic of Western Balkans 2007). Her recent publications include articles on Ethnic politics and minority policies in Serbia: evolution and constitutional design since the Document of the Copenhagen Meeting (1990) In: Economic, political and legal issues of international relations 2016 Volume of Scientific Papers, Bratislava: Vydavateľstvo EKONÓM, 2016; “Exploring the opportunities for trans-ethnic cooperation within and across Serbia through the national minority councils” In: Journal on Ethnopolitics and Minority Issues in Europe (JEMIE), ECMI, Volume 14, Issue 2, 2015 and on Language in the context of human and minority rights. In: Language in Political, Ideological and Intercultural Relations. Sociolinguistica Slovaca 8. Wachtarczyková, J- Satinská, L.- Ondrejovič, S. (ed.). Bratislava: Veda, vydavateľstvo SAV, 2015. Her current research interest includes diaspora, ethnicity, identity, minority rights and multiculturalism.

Part-time Lecturer at Department of Political Science, Faculty of Philosophy, Comenius University in Bratislava. Gondova 2, PO Box 32, 814 99 Bratislava, Slovak republic, Email: svetlusa_surova@biari.brown.edu; svetlusa.surova@gmail.com "This work was supported by the Erste Foundation for Social Research for the Year 2015/2016 under research grant.”

Svetluša Surová

The national and ethnic identifications among Slovak diaspora in Serbia: stranded in between Serbian state and Slovak ethnicity? Abstract Identity has been regarded in relevant literature predominantly as dynamic, fluid, multidimensional and ongoing process. Currently identity is viewed as a process of identification, something achieved and as product of social relations. Scholars have acknowledge that members of minorities and diasporas can have very complex, multiple identities, which are dependent on social context and which are changeable over the time. This article explores national and ethnic identifications of Slovaks living in Serbia. The main objective is to examine how the members of Slovak diaspora identify themselves, what kind of national and ethnic awareness and pride they hold. As well, paper explores opinions and attitudes on language and cultural identity. The research design used here is quantitative. Quantitative research method includes a web-based survey. The results of explorative study indicates, that members of Slovak diaspora living in Serbia have multiple identities, which coexists in non-conflictual way and vary in their importance for respondents. Distinct national and ethnic identifications are perceived in different way and have divergent emotional intensity. This study propose further research on the importance of a civic and ethnic values, different perceptions of identity, citizenship, length of residency and minority rights for collective identifications of minorities and/or diasporas. Keywords: identity, national identity, ethnic identity, multiple identities, Slovak diaspora in Serbia

Svetluša Surová

1. INTRODUCTION

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1.

National identity

2.2.

Ethnic identity

3. RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT

3.1.

Operationalization of the terms and concepts

4. RESEARCH DESIGN

4.1.

Sampling

4.2.

Topics, measures and respondents of the survey

5. ANALYSIS

5.1.

Citizenship and residence

5.2.

Ethnic identity

5.3.

Language identity

5.4.

Cultural identity

5.5.

The 'lands' of diaspora

6. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

BIBLIOGRAPHY

NOTES

Svetluša Surová

The national and ethnic identifications among Slovak diaspora in Serbia: stranded in between Serbian state and Slovak ethnicity?

1. Introduction

Slovaks living in Serbia are either result of historical migration, which started from the 18th century and continued throughout the entire 19th century within Austria and later AustroHungarian empire1, or current international migration. After the dissolution of the AustroHungarian empire and the end of the First World War, historically called Lower land or Vojvodina joined a Serbia and became a part of Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenians2. During the Second World War after Yugoslavia capitulated in 1941, Vojvodina was separated into three occupational zones: Bačka under Hortyʹs Hungary, Srem under newly formed Independent State of Croatia and Banat formally under Serbia but de facto under German Reich protectorate. After the Second World War and liberation, Vojvodina was incorporated as an autonomous region into Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. From the second half of the 20th century until today, Vojvodina continued to be a region of Serbia with distinct autonomous powers and it was part of different state forms which Serbia constituted3. Serbia is a multi-ethnic, multi-faith4 and multilingual5 country. The total population of Serbia without Kosovo and Metohija6 is estimated to be 7 186 8627. More than twenty different ethnic communities live in Serbia8. Slovaks in Serbia number 52 750 according to the last census hold in 20119 and compose 0,7 per cent of total Serbian population. The largest number of Slovaks (50321) live in Vojvodina, which comprise 1 931 809 people. Here Slovaks form the third largest ethnic group after Serbs (1 289 635) and Hungarians (251 136). It is important to emphasize that total number of people who declared themselves as Slovaks in former Yugoslavia and nowadays Serbia is continuously decreasing from the year 1961 from the total number 77 837 to 52 750, which constitute 32,23 per cent decrease in the last fifty years. There is a lack of scientific literature which explains changing demographics of Slovaks in Serbia. Majority members of Slovak community in Serbia speak Slovak language while they have right to education in their mother tongue and most of them are Protestant or Evangelic fate. From the beginning of Slovak settlement in Vojvodina, Slovaks had some minority rights guaranteed. Before the 21th century, mainly language and religious rights were protected. After the year 2000 the new minority rights regime started to evolve in Serbia. Consequently, Slovak community was officially recognized as national minority and had been granted considerable minority rights. The highest achievement in minority rights protection was establishment of National minority councils of national minorities10, collective rights and right to cultural autonomy for minorities. With the development of Slovak diaspora engagement policies in the early 1990ʹs till today, Slovaks living abroad became the subject of interest and concern of Slovak republic as well. Slovakia have established a system of special rights and benefits for foreign Slovaks within and beyond its territory. After the breakup of Socialistic Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY), civil war, poor socio-economic situation in the country and bombing of the country in 1999 by 5

Svetluša Surová

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), many Slovaks fled and/or migrated from Serbia to Slovakia. Slovak republic provided foreign Slovaks preferential treatment in the areas of residency, work, health system, education and citizenship acquisition. Some Slovaks from Serbia stayed in Slovakia permanently, some of them migrated further to other states while some returned back to Serbia. Many of them acquired either Slovak living abroad certificate or citizenship or both for various reasons. In the last 26 years many different factors and circumstances have influenced status, migration patterns, life trajectories and identities of Slovaks living in Serbia. The members of Slovak community living in Serbia fall concurrently under two distinct regimes of two different states: Serbian minority rights regime and Slovak diaspora regime. Respectively, they are formally and legally recognized and labelled as national minority and diaspora at the same time. Therefore, I decided to explore how the members of Slovak diaspora in Serbia identify themselves and how they perceive their own identity. Especially I am focusing on their memberships in political community i.e. the issues of identification with the state as well on the issues of ethnic identifications. The main research questions are concerning national and ethnic identities as well as national and ethnic consciousness of the Slovaks living in Serbia. In this study the quantitative research method is applied. Quantitative method involves a web-based survey and basic statistical analysis. The online survey explores identities and perceptions, national and ethnic consciousness as well as opinions and attitudes of the members of Slovak diaspora in Serbia on language and cultural identity. The structure of the paper is as follows: first section introduces the research topic. Second section provides literature review on identity, national and ethnic identity and identification from perspective of social sciences, mainly sociology and political science. In the third section problem statement and research questions are described. Fourth section explains research design used in this study. Fifth section analyse online survey data and presents results in more details. Last sixth section summarize findings of the study and suggest further research on the topic of collective identities of minorities and diasporas.

2. Literature review

Scholars agree that identity has become the central concept of contemporary societies. Swayd (2014) noticed, that we live in the 'Age of identity' which occur simultaneously with the 'Age of internet'. Identity concept is of great significance in many fields of social sciences too (BurkeStets, 2009). Sociology focus on identity (Burke-Stets, 2009), namely social psychological theory (Howard, 2000) and identity plays a central role in every subfield of the political science (Fearon, 1999). On the other hand, some scholars (Brubaker and Cooper 2000; Swayd, 2014) condemn the concept for overuse that leads to its meaningless. In spite of widespread use of the concept of identity, only few scholars define the term. The term identity in the sense of ʹquality of being identicalʹ originated in the late 16th century from the late Latin ʹidentitasʹ and from Latin ʹidemʹ, meaning same (Oxford dictionaries). The formal meaning of the term identity refers to: a) either to the fact of being who or what a person or thing is b) and/or to the characteristics determining who or what a person or thing is c) and/or as mean serving to establish who the holder, owner, or wearer is by bearing their name and often other details such as a signature or photograph (e.g. identity card) and d) to a close similarity or affinity11. Another dictionary provides the meaning of the term identity as a) who a person is, or b) as qualities of 6

Svetluša Surová

a person or group that make them different from others12. Paradoxically, the term identity denotes concurrently identical and opposite definitional features of someone or something and also the antithetical aspects of phenomena e.g. sameness vs. difference, stability vs. change. Identity is also a theoretical construct and rather ambiguous and polar concept (Kun, 2015). Is it possible than to define and conceptualize such a complex and multiplex term in a proper, rigorous scientific way? I will continue with the critical overview of sociological and political science literature on the issue of identity. In the field of sociology, the concept of identity is seen as a link between the individual and society. As well, identity is perceived as human capacity rooted in language to know ʹwho is whoʹ (Jenkins, 2014). Dominant identity theory has evolved from symbolic interaction and perceptual control theory. Sociological literature assume that individuals exists only within the context of social structure and that persons identities can be derived from their roles in society, the groups they belong to and from the personal characteristics (Burke-Stets, 2009). The emphasis is on the structure and organization of society but different scholars orient on different aspects of personʹs identity. Most importantly, identity is regarded as agent of action. It is considered that identities have both cognitive and emotional component processes and that they function at both conscious and unconscious levels. Further, some scholars distinguish between personal and social identities. Burke and Stets (2009, 112) make distinction between role, person and social identities. According to them, the role identities are person identities and they are based on different social structural positions that person hold (i.e. spouse, worker, parent). Social identities emerge from the individualʹs memberships in certain groups or as persons being Democrat, Latino or Catholic. It was suggested that all distinct bases of identities (role, person and group) operate in the same way. In contrast to this view, Jenkins (2014, 39) understands individual and collective identities not as different phenomena but as similar, intertwined and interconnected. In the same direction Lawler (2014) argues for more inclusive usage of the term identity encompassing role and personal identities as well for avoiding reducing identity to different categories of gender, nation and class. Swayd (2014) reintroduced the concept of the sense of identity, which is a more evocative construct of the 21th century. The sense of identity is merely a function of the individualʹs advancement in self-knowledge and self-awareness, that is, an internal process, and the individualʹs identification with the community and/or World religions, that is, an external process. The shift from identity to sense of identity can be useful and meaningful concept because of its flexibility and lower prescription charge. Scholars hold consensus to some degree on what the identity is, rather than, how it is manifested and on what it is based on. They agree that identity is not a ʹthingʹ, ʹpropertyʹ or something that one can have or not, rather is a process of identification or something that one does and it is a product of social relations (Nagel, 1996; Burke-Stets, 2009; Lawler, 2014; Jenkins, 2014). Sociological literature understands identity as a process and something achieved and not as something ʹownedʹ or ʹinbornʹ. Similarly in political science, scholars are reaching the consensus that identities are not inherited but constructed (Laitin, 1998; Gibbons-Ashdown, 2010 and 2011). As Laitin (1998) points out, it has become a general rule to speak about identities in the terms of construction and choice rather than blood and inheritance. Recent sociological literature agrees on the view that identities can be at the same time stabile and changeable (Howard, 2000; Burke-Stets, 2009; Swayd, 2014). Various conceptions view identities as fluid, multidimensional, personalized social construction that reflect sociohistorical 7

Svetluša Surová

contexts (Howard, 2000). Further it was suggested that people can hold multiple identities because of their multiple positions in society (Burke-Stets, 2009; Koos, 2012). Sociological literature advocates that identity matters. According to Jenkins (2014) who we are and who we are seen to be, can matter enormously. Now, I will introduce conceptualization of identity in political science. In the political science, the concept of identity is widely used but not always defined by the scholars. Fearon (1999) concludes that the identity concept currently refers to either a social category, defined by membership rules and alleged characteristic attributes or expected behaviours or to socially distinguishing features that a person takes a special pride in or views as unchangeable but socially consequential. As well, the term identity denotes the dignity, pride or honour, which are linked to social categories. Fearon (1999) distinguishes two classes of identities, role and type. This imply that the term identity is used in two linked senses, what Fearon names 'social' and 'personal' identity. This is a very similar view to identity theory but Fearon's idea emphasize one side of the identity concept, which focus on who a person is and what kind of characteristics the group has. The other approaches such as multiculturalism, stress the second aspect of identity- the difference, what a person is not and argues for recognition of these differences. Human identity is connected with the recognition in the study of multiculturalism and politics of recognition. In this perspective, identity is viewed as dialogically created, in response to our relations and including our dialogues with others. As Taylor (in Gutmann, 1994 33) puts it, 'we define our identity always in dialogue with, sometimes in struggle against, the things our significant others want to see in us'. The concept of identity means for Taylor 'who we are and where we are coming from' (Gutmann, 1994: 33). Further, I will continue by providing the overview of the concept of national and consequently ethnic identity.

2.1.

National identity

Relevant literature regards national identity as the central identity in the modern world. National identities are usually defined as socio-territorial psychic constructs and many scholars relate them to nationalism (Brubaker, 1992, 1996; Guibernau, 1999; Greenfeld-Eastwood, 2009; Koss, 2012). The notion of nationalism is discussed within two perspectives, namely primordialistic and constructivist paradigm. Primordialists or perennialists regard national identities as fixed, exogenous to all other social phenomena and as master identities in relation to other collective identities. On contrary, constructivists perceive identities as malleable, which can be subject to a number of social influences and not necessarily hierarchically ranked different components of multiple identities (Koos, 2012). Different stances between primordialists and constructivists is based on how the concept of nation is defined. Classifications of nationalisms13 vary but usually are distinguished two types: ethno-cultural nationalism, involving the consciousness of a shared ancestry and history; and civic nationalism, relying on the idea of belonging to the same state. Even in this discussion, the constructivism obtained dominant position in the relevant literature. It was suggested that collective identities and national identities among them are changeable, multi-layered, nested and non-hierarchical and non-conflictual relations between the components. As well it was 8

Svetluša Surová

identified a whole range of new identities such as supra-, post-, inter- and trans-national identities (Koos, 2012). All of mentioned approaches try to explain national identities through linking them strongly to other ambiguous and contested concepts such as nationalism and nation. On the contrary, Mccrone (2015) considers national identity to be a clearly distinct idea from the concepts of nationalism and nation. He points out on the differences between the state and nation. Even further, Maccrone differentiate national identity from nationality or holding the passport of some state. Very closely related to the notion of national identity is the concept of national pride. National pride is related to the feelings of patriotism and nationalism but is not equivalent to being nationalistic. Rather it is positive affect, which public can feel towards their country (SmithKim, 2006). The theory suggest that national pride is greater among the dominant cultural group and lower among minority groups.

2.2.

Ethnic identity

Ethnic identity is understood as the central essence of ethnicity (Nagel, 1995) and key concept in the studies of ethnicity. The term ethnicity refers to a large group of people who have the same national, racial, or cultural origins14 or to the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has common national or cultural tradition15. This term has multiple meanings on account of numerous denotations and connotations. Firstly, ethnicity denotes group or community of people and/or membership in a social group with some shared features. Secondly, ethnicity connotes field of study, the classification of people and group relationships16, which consider themselves and are regarded by others as culturally distinctive as well minority issues or race relations (Eriksen, 2010). A primary meaning of the term ethnicity suggest some common attributes and quality which a community, group or individuals have, as well the entity, that has ʹsomethingʹ, that defines it in ethnic terms. This definition reflects a more essentialist view on ethnicity. The second connotation of the ethnicity expresses oppositions and social classification between different groups of people in terms ʹwe vs. themʹ. For example, Nagel (1996) characterizes ethnic identity as dialectic between internal identification and external ascription. For her, identity is the site where structure and agency collide and it is understood as multi-layered, with different identities activated at different times. Although the usefulness of this term in social sciences has been questioned, many scholars find ethnicity functional as an analytical concept for the processes of identification (Tonkin et al. in Hutchinson-Smith, 1996: 23). Since ethnic identity is closely related to the concept of ethnicity, various definitions reflect distinct comprehension of this concept. There are two broad approaches to ethnicity studies-primordialism and instrumentalism and a number of alternative approaches- Barthʹs transactionalist, Horowitzʹs social psychological, Armstrongʹs and Smithʹs ethno-symbolic account (Hutchinson-Smith, 1996 33-104). Different scholar's accounts emphasize distinct understanding of ethnicity while focusing on contrasting features of ethnicity and ethnic communities. In the past fifty years scholars have more and more emphasized ethnicity as a socially constructed phenomenon (Fedor, 2014; Penn 2008). Further, predominant views suggest that ethnicity is fluid, relational and situational. Many scholars view ethnic boundaries as continually changing though not without constraints (Nagel, 1995). As Wimmer notes (2013) by the end of the 1990ʹs constructivism prevailed over 9

Svetluša Surová

essentialism, instrumentalism over primordialism and circumstantialism over perennialism. Yet vast of literature in comparative politics is viewing ethnic identity something as singular, timeless and fixed for the all times (Chandra 2006, 2012). Scholars from all camps and approaches in the study of ethnicities have proposed either classification or some sort of definitional characteristics of ethnic identity. The most widely used definitions of ethnic identity emphasize a descent as important feature defining an ethnic group. Only the role of descent is specified in different ways including common ancestry, a common myth of ancestry, a common language, a common culture and a common homeland. Consequently Chandra (2006, 2012) has suggested to leave out almost all previously used definitional criteria from defining the term ʹethnic identityʹ in comparative politics. Chandra (2006; 2012) defines ʹidentityʹ as a social category in which an individual is eligible to be a member and ʹethnic identitiesʹ are understood as a subset of identity categories in which membership is determined by attributes associated with or believed to be associated with descent or descent-based attributes. Attributes associated with descent are the attributes that are acquired genetically (such as skin colour, gender, hair type and physical features) or through cultural and historical inheritance (such as names, languages, places of birth and origin of oneʹs parents and ancestors) or acquired in the course of oneʹs lifetime as markers of such inheritance (such as last name or tribal markings). The attributes believed to be associated with descent are understood by Chandra (2006) as those which are concerning myths of association with descent. Chandra (2006; 2012) had proposed a minimal definition of ethnic identities seen as a subset of categories in which descent-based attributes are necessary for membership. The importance of Chandraʹs definition lies in her resulting argument that ethnicity as an academic concept doesn’t matter or has not shown to matter in explanatory theories in the comparative politics. Chandra has pointed out that, theories discussing the effects of ethnic identities or concepts related to them including violence, democratic stability, patronage are using classifications that do not correlate with their own definitions of the ethnic identity. Literature review shows that there are various definitions and uses of the terms and concepts of identity. The five most common uses of identity notion are in relation to personal identity, cultural identity, social identity, ethnic identity and (post) modern identity (Swayd, 2014). Although it is quiet common to link identity to categories of class, ethnicity, nation, gender etc. Lawler (2014) warns about reduction of identity to the mentioned categories. Lawler (2014) asserts that, even though these categories can be significant for individuals as well collectives, they cannot explain the total complexity of ʹlived identityʹ. Main findings in relevant literature can be summarized in a few points: firstly, academic and ordinary usages and understandings of the terms and concepts of identity and ethnic identity among others (racial, national, religious identity) have been evolving over time and have changed significantly. In the late 19th and early 20th century it was believed that racial and ethnic groups are lasting, biological types and that differences between them were natural and fixed. Previous focus on biology was replaced by orientation on cultural differences. While primordialism was still insisting that ethnicity is fixed, permanent and static, constructivism challenged these ideas by claiming that identities are socially constructed, changeable and dynamic. The later paradigm is prevalent in social science today. Secondly, this means that term identity can be used to make references to a wide scope of phenomena. Identity can refer to my sense of myself, othersʹs perceptions of me, my reactions to others perceptions, the social categories that attach themselves to me and to which I attach myself (Lawler, 2014). Thirdly, it was acknowledge that identities can be static and dynamic, multiple, multi-faceted and flexible. Fourthly, it can be concluded that identities are 10

Svetluša Surová

a very complex and paradox phenomenon under constant development and change and we still lack a theory that could fully explain this phenomenon. In order to contribute to the examination of identities, this study explores how the members of Slovak diaspora in Serbia identify themselves and how they perceive different categories or elements of their identity. The next section will present the research problem and research questions of the study.

3. Research problem statement

As it was already mention in the introduction, Slovak diaspora living in Serbia fall concurrently under two distinct regimes: Serbian minority regime and Slovak diaspora regime. Serbian ethnic politics and development of minority policies have undergone dramatic changes from the 1990ʹs. Many new concepts such as collective rights and cultural autonomy of national minorities as well as institutional changes regarding voting and party system were introduced in Serbian constitutional and legal system in order to pursue the concepts of full equality and effective participation of minorities (Surova, 2006a, 2006b; 2007; 2008; 2012; 2014). In the last twenty six years the scope of legally guaranteed and protected minority rights in Serbia was gradually widening. One could assume that existence of the substantial minority rights would strengthen or reinforce ethnic identifications among minorities. However, the number of people who declared themselves as Slovaks from the 1960's and particularly in the last three Serbian censuses (1991, 2002, 2011) was constantly declining. Scholars explain decline in ethnic identifications among all ethnic groups17 in Serbia with three factors: natural population growth, migrations and change in individual declarations on ethnic identity18. Although we don’t know the exact number of those who declared themselves once as Slovaks and otherwise not, demographic statistics indicates that members of Slovak diaspora can and really do change their ethnic identities. For this reason, I decided to explore national and ethnic identifications, ethnic and national consciousness and opinions and attitudes on the issues of ethnic identity, language, culture and homeland among Slovak diaspora living in Serbia. My main research questions are as follows: 1) How the members of Slovak diaspora living in Serbia identify themselves? How they perceive their own identity? Do they identify themselves as the members of Slovak nation/Slovak ethnic group and/or as Serbian/Slovak citizens? 2) What kind of national awareness and national pride they hold? What kind of ethnic awareness and ethnic pride they hold? 3) What kind of attitudes and opinions they have regarding their ethnic, cultural and language identity? How they perceive the concept of homeland (country of origin, motherland, fatherland)?

3.1.

Operationalization of the terms and concepts

In this paper I subscribe to the constructivist tradition and view on identities as socially constructed categories. It is recognized here the great complexity of the identity phenomenon, characterised with innumerable nuances that can cause real difficulties while operating with dichotomous analytical tools and categories. In this paper Lawler's (2014) concept of identity is applied, where identity is understood in a very broad sense including personal, role and social identities and where it is recognized that different forms or categories of identities do not exist 11

Svetluša Surová

in isolation. Different scholars proposed distinct definitions of the term diaspora (Safran 1991, 1999; Cohen 1995; Vertovec 2005; Brubaker 2005; Gamlen 2006, 2008, 2011; Dufoix 2008; Esman 2009; Bauböck-Faist 2010; Tölölyan 2012; Collyer 2013; Sheffer). In this study a working definition of the term diaspora is applied, including its modern and formal meaning. Working definition also derives from the legal and political concept of diaspora used in the context of the Slovak republic19. This means, that the adopted definition of the term diaspora is rather inclusive and it is understood in a very broad sense as a group of persons who migrated from the country or place, to which they are related by origin, ethnicity and/or citizenship and who feel diasporic. By no means analytical definition presuppose that diaspora is a pre-existing group of people with a stable, given characteristic. While working definitions comprise both objective and subjective criteria, the priority is given to the self-determination or to the selfascription in choosing oneʹs identity. For the purpose of the online survey the unit of analysis are individuals, who feel themselves as Slovaks and who spent the most of their time in the last year in Serbia. National identity is understood as identifying with the state or as emotionally attached to the state. It follows that national identity is a measurement of the feeling of belonging to a particular state. Similarly, ethnic identity is here defined as identifying with the ethnic group or as emotionally attached to the oneʹs ethnic group. Consequently, ethnic identity is therefore a measurement of the feeling of belonging to a particular ethnic group. Ethnic group is understood as a community or population made up of people who share a common cultural background or descent20. The national consciousness is referring to the one’s awareness or perception of citizenship. Likewise, the ethnic consciousness is referring to the one’s awareness or perception of ethnicity.

4. Research design Scholars have acknowledged that surveys have become a widely used research tools in social sciences for gathering primary data (Neuman, 1991). Through surveys we can obtain 'selfreported verbal information from the people about themselves' (Rea-Parker, 2014 4). By using surveys, three types of information can be collected: descriptive, behavioural and attitudinal. In this study a web-based survey was used, which is seen as an alternative to the traditional mailout technique. The advantages of the web-based surveys are following: convenience, rapid data collection, cost-effectiveness, ample time, ease of follow up, specialized populations and complexity and visual aids (Rea-Parker, 2014). As any other research method, web-based survey has certain disadvantages too, which are following: limited respondent bases, selfselection and lack of interviewer involvement. There are several reasons, why the web-based survey was chosen as a research method in this study. Firstly, there are not available relevant primary and secondary sources on this topic. The scientific literature investigating the attitudes of the Slovak diaspora in Serbia regarding their national and ethnic consciousness and identity is lacking. Data that I wanted to obtain were of personal nature concerning the attitudes and opinions of the members of the Slovak diaspora living in Serbia. Secondly, through the means of the information technologies and internet the focus respondent population was easily accessible. In addition, the online survey was time and money efficient.

Svetluša Surová

4.1.

Sampling

The sampling enables researcher to make generalizations about a population based on a scientifically selected subset of that population (Rea- Parker, 2014). Sampling methods are usually classified into probability and non-probability sampling. In this study was applied nonrandom or nonprobability sample. Main reasons for this choice were: firstly, there is no available objective data on the overall size and composition of the Slovak diaspora living in Serbia; secondly, time and money constraints of the research project. Further, it was used nonprobability purposive sample, which is sometimes called also judgement sampling (Mosley, 2013) as well as convenience sampling. The purposive sample implies that the researcher uses her professional judgement instead of randomness in selecting respondents. Based on the specific features which are seen relevant for the study, the selection of this sample was performed. Since the study analyses the identities, awareness, prides, opinions and attitudes of the members of Slovak diaspora living in Serbia, the target persons where those who feel themselves and declare themselves as Slovaks and who spent the most of their time (meaning days and nights) in the past year in Serbia. Without probability of equal selection among the potential respondents, the sample data cannot be analysed in the perspective of the normal distribution. Consequently, the sample data cannot be used to make generalisation beyond the sample itself. Even in spite of this limitations, non-random sampling is seen as beneficial for research on collective identities.

4.2.

Topics, measures and respondents of the survey

The online survey exploring national and ethnic identifications and of Slovak diaspora living in Serbia was conducted from 22nd till 30th November 2015 through the Survey Monkey software. Survey comprised forty nine questions divided into six sections as follows: introductory part, citizenship and residency part, ethnic identity part, language identity part, cultural identity part, opinions and attitudes part. The questions in the questionnaire were predominantly closed type with a few open ended ones. Through this online survey were collected descriptive and attitudinal information. Socioeconomic data such as the respondentʹs gender, age, education, occupation, monthly income, residence, faith and ethnicity were gathered. In general, the topics of the survey were concerning the respondents citizenship (Serbian); citizenship of parents at birth of respondent (Serbian); citizenship pride (Serbian); identification with oneʹs own state and identification with oneʹs own nation or ethnic group; identification with the town or the city, the region (Vojvodina), the state (Serbia), the kin-state (Slovakia) and with the respective continent (Europe); respondent citizenship (Slovak); citizenship of parents at birth of of the majority nation in the state of residence; attitudes towards denotation of true Slovaks; preference for assimilation of minorities or retention of their identity; attitude to government support respondent (Slovak); citizenship pride (Slovak); respondents other citizenships; respondents ethnic identity: self-declaration of ethnic identity; perceived ethnic affiliation; identification with one´s own nation or ethnic group and national or ethnic pride (Slovak); attitudes towards truly Slovak; language identity; languages spoken at home, languages spoken in education institutions (primary, secondary, university); languages 13

Svetluša Surová

spoken at work; languages spoken in public institutions (registry offices, health institutions, police, courts); perceived mother tongue; cultural identity; attitudes towards knowing the culture of oneʹs own nation or ethnic group; attitudes towards knowing the culture of other nations; attitudes towards knowing the culture of national minorities to preserve their customs and traditions; perception of oneʹs own understanding of the homeland, motherland, country of origin and home; perceived affiliation towards country regardless of citizenship or residency; preferred country of belonging; preferred spoken language. Few comments on doing research on identification is necessary here. Both national and ethnic identities can be measured in different ways. In this study was used the simplest method by asking the respondents about their identifications with the state and ethnic group. For the measurement of both, national and ethnic pride, as well for measurement of closeness to the state and ethnic group, were used four point rating scales in which the attitude of the respondent is measured on a continuum from one extreme to another with an equal number, in this case, two positive and two negative response possibilities. Further, questions on ethnic identity comprised legally obligatory notice that citizens of Serbia are not obliged to declare themselves on their ethnicity (Article 47, Constitution)21 and respondents were asked if they are willing to report their ethnicity. More importantly, same questions on ethnic identity were open ended. Decision to leave open questions was deliberate, to see how respondents self-identify themselves and what kind of different ways of proclamations they use. Subjective opinions, attitudes and subtle meanings and understandings among respondents can be more precisely detected with open-ended response formats. For the same purposes the other questions concerning mother language and preferable use of the language in daily life as well as the questions relating respondents understanding of terms such as homeland, motherland, country of origin and home were left open. Within the ten days collection time of responses I received altogether 179 submitted questionnaires. After the control and eliminating incomplete questionnaires and those coming from the respondents which marked that they do not feel as Slovak, I obtained complete 139 questionnaires. Out of total number of 139 respondents (N= 139) female represent 51.45% (n=72) and male 48.55% (n=67). Respondents ranged in age from 10 to 65 and more, and the mean age is between 30-39 (SD=1.26). The most respondents have achieved at least high school education with graduation and higher university level education (SD=1.30). The most of respondents are employed, namely is state sector (35.25%), private sector (15.83%) or selfemployed (10.79%). The percentage of pensioners in sample was 17.27% and unemployed respondents was 8.63%. The mean monthly income of respondents was in range of 40 000- 49 999 dinars (324.64- 405.79 Euro, SD=2.18). The most of respondents (96.24%) irrespective of official residence registration live in Serbia for more than twenty years. Majority of respondents 92.65% belong to Protestant churches. Respondents are coming from more than 19 different Serbian towns or cities. In the next section I will analyse the survey results in detail.

Svetluša Surová

5. Analysis 5.1.

Citizenship and residence

Battery on citizenship and national identities was composed of questions concerning Serbian, Slovak and other citizenships and national identities (Q10-Q22). Respondents were asked about Serbian, Slovak and other citizenships (respectively Q10, Q17 and Q20), citizenship of their parents at their birth (Q11 and Q18), their national pride (Q12 and Q19), identifications with Serbian state, majority Serbian nation and identification with their own Slovak nation or ethnic group (Q13). Further questions were asked on residence (Q14 residence in the childhood and residence abroad Q16), closeness to locality, region, Serbia, Slovakia and Europe (Q15) and preferable migration trajectories within locality, region, Serbia, Slovakia, Europe and world (Q22). Vast majority of respondents have Serbian citizenship (98.54%) and even their both parents (97.76%) had Serbian or Yugoslav citizenship at the time when they were born. While 38.98% of respondents are proud of Serbian citizenship, bit less 32.25% are not so proud of this fact and large percentage of respondents (28.68%) didn’t want to answer on this question or didn’t know have they feel about it. The most respondents identify themselves equally as a members of another ethnic group and Serbian citizens (47.06%). The others identify themselves exclusively as members of Slovak nation or Slovak ethnic group that lives in Serbia (27.94%) while rest of respondents perceive themselves more as distinct ethnicity then Serbian citizens (14.71%, See Table 1). Analysis did not show significant difference between genders on national pride or self-identification. Table 1. Self-perception in terms of national and ethnic affiliation (Q13) Q 13. Some people think about themselves firstly as Serbian citizens. The others consider themselves as a members of another ethnic group. Which of these views comes closer to your own?

Responses

I consider myself at the same time as a member of another ethnic group and Serbian citizen.

47.06%

I consider myself only as a member of another nation, which lives in Serbia.

27.94%

I consider myself more as a member of another ethnic group than Serbian citizen.

14.71%

I do not know.

5.15%

I consider myself more as a Serbian citizen than as a member of another ethnic group.

2.94%

I consider myself only as a Serbian citizen.

2.21%

Total

136

Attachments to locality (city or town M=1.56 and SD= 0.72) and region (Vojvodina, M=1.56 and SD=0.78) are stronger than to Serbia (M= 2.33 and SD= 1.09), Slovakia (M= 2.46 and SD=1.12) and Europe (M=2.79 and SD=1.19). See Table 2 for the results on Attachments. 15

Svetluša Surová Table 2. Attachments (Q15) Q 15. How close do you feel to… Very close

Not very close Not close at all No answer Total

Your own town or city

54.81%

40.00%

2.22%

0.74%

2.22%

135

Your own region (Vojvodina)

52.59%

42.96%

2.22%

0.74%

1.48%

135

Serbia

21.80%

42.86%

22.56%

6.02%

6.77%

133

Slovakia

19.26%

41.48%

18.52%

15.56%

5.19%

135

Europe

13.74%

32.82%

23.66%

20.61%

9.16%

131

Analysis showed no significant difference among genders and their local, regional and country attachments, while significantly more respondents feel very close to Slovakia among males than females. As well there is difference between genders on feeling close to Europe. Male respondents in general feel close to Europe, while female respondents don’t feel so close to Europe. This can be explained for example, with their experiences living abroad. Most of the respondents never lived in another country than Serbia. There is significant difference based on gender on this fact. More females never reside outside Serbia than males. From those who did live abroad more than one year, is significant difference among genders in favour of males. Great majority of respondents do not hold Slovak citizenship (93.48%), only 6.52% of respondents reported Slovak nationality. From those who have Slovak citizenship in the most cases, their parents didn’t hold Czechoslovak or Slovak citizenship at their birth. Most of the respondents hold high national pride concerning Slovak state. Other citizenships among respondents were represented in a very small number (one Macedonian). If the circumstances would allow respondents to improve their life by migration, most of respondents would be willing to move to Slovakia, but not to another part of Serbia or to move out from Europe. Analysis detected only one significant difference between genders in terms of migration preferences. Significantly higher number of females would move anywhere from Serbia than males. This is probably due to the fact, that most of the female respondents live currently in different town or cities from those where they have spent their childhood in comparison to males. Female internal migration is possibly caused by different life circumstances, but most likely by marriages and work factors. Female respondents are thus seen as more willing to migrate.

5.2.

Ethnic identity

Part on ethnic identity clustered questions on ethnic self-identification (Q24), sense of ethnic affiliation or feeling (Q25), closeness to ethnic identity (Q26), ethnic pride (Q27) and perceptions of the ʹtruly Slovakʹ (Q28). The great number of respondents 93.43% were willing to declare themselves on their ethnic affiliation. On open-ended question (Q24), formulated as 16

Svetluša Surová

'What is your ethnic affiliation?' respondents were not answering with logically expected adjective Slovak (“Slovenská, slovenská príslušnosť”), whilst 21.70% of respondents referred to Slovak ethnic affiliation. In most cases, respondents were using nouns to identify themselves as Slovaks, namely males used noun Slovak- 'Slovák' (38.68%) and females used noun Slovak'Slovenka' (33.02%). Very small percentage of respondents identified themselves as Slovaks with Slovak ancestors e.g. they wrote 'Slovak, my parents and their (both) parents were Slovaks', or as Slovaks from Serbia, Slovaks living in Serbia and Slovak-Vojvodina person. In addition, I was asking them on feelings about their ethnic identity. Regardless of their selfdeclared ethnic affiliation, all respondents feel themselves as Slovak (M=1, SD=0.00). Overwhelming majority of respondents feel very close to their ethnic identity (95.62%, M=1, SD=0.64). Similarly, the same percentage of respondents feel high pride on their ethnic identity (95.62%, M=1, SD=0.64). For being ʹtruly Slovakʹ respondents have marked out as important following factors: to be able to speak Slovak, to feel as Slovak, to have Slovak ancestry and to be Christian. The other factors such as holding Slovak citizenship, to live for the most of oneʹs life in Slovakia or to be born in Slovakia are not so important circumstances that contribute to creation of ʹtruly Slovakʹ for these respondents (See Table 3 for findings). Analysis shows that for female respondents Christianity is very important, as a determining factor for being ʹtruly Slovakʹ rather than for males. As well, the most female respondents don’t find important recognition of Slovak political institutions and laws to be ʹtruly Slovakʹ. Whereas for the male respondents knowing institutions and regulations of Slovak state is important. Female respondents also recognize more importance of having Slovak forefathers than males. Table 3. True Slovak (Q28) Q 28. How important do you think each Very important of the following is…

Fairly important

Not very important

Not important Do not at all know

Total

To be able to speak Slovak.

75.74%

22.79%

0.74%

0.00%

136

To feel Slovak.

73.33%

20.00%

2.96%

0.74%

135

To have Slovak ancestors.

67.41%

25.19%

3.70%

1.48%

2.22%

135

To be Christian.

37.12%

19.70%

21.21%

2.27%

132

To respect political institutions and laws of Slovak republic.

13.33%

18.52%

28.89%

34.07%

5.19%

135

To have Slovak citizenship.

11.03%

14.71%

30.88%

42.65%

0.74%

136

To have lived in Slovakia for most of oneʹs life.

3.70%

2.22%

40.74%

51.11%

2.22%

135

To be born in Slovakia.

2.96%

3.70%

36.30%

55.56%

1.48%

135

Svetluša Surová

5.3.

Language identity

Battery on language identity comprised questions about mother tongue or the language that person learned at the earliest age of life, language of education (primary, secondary, tertiary), mostly used language at home, work and public sphere (Q29-Q35). Vast majority of respondents speak at home Slovak language (91.24%) and the rest of respondents speak either both Slovak and Serbian at home (6.57%), or only Serbian (1.46%) or Slovak and some another language (0.73%). Official language in the most primary schools attended by respondents was Slovak language (88.32%), than Slovak and Serbian (8.03%) and lastly only Serbian language (3.65%). Majority of respondents who attended secondary schools, attended schools with Serbian language (51.47%), then Slovak language (36.76%) or both Serbian and Slovak languages (6.62%). More respondents who attended universities, were studying in Serbian language than Slovak language. Detailed analysis on gender differences among answers showed that significantly more males attended primary schools with official Slovak language, while more females studied their university degrees in Slovak language. At work respondents speak mainly Slovak, than equally Slovak and Serbian, further Serbian and lastly Slovak and another languages. At public authorities (e.g. registers), health institutions, police and courts respondents use in small degree Slovak language otherwise mainly Serbian language (See Table 4). Overwhelming majority of respondents consider Slovak language as their mother tongue. If respondents would have a possibility to choose preferable language of everyday communication it would be mainly Slovak language. Table 4. Languages in public sphere (Q34) Q 34. Which language you use most often in public sphere…

Slovak

Serbian

Slovak and Serbian

Another language

Do not know

Do not have contact with these authorities

Total

Public authorities (registry office)

33.58%

23.36%

43.07%

0.00%

137

Health institutions

27.74%

27.01%

45.26%

0.00%

137

Police

4.38%

67.15%

27.01%

0.00%

0.73%

137

Courts

3.68%

75.74%

13.24%

0.00%

2.21%

5.15%

136

5.4.

Cultural identity

Battery on cultural identity encompassed several questions on following issues: on the importance of knowing ownʹs nation culture (Q36), knowing others nations culture (Q37), knowing the culture of majority nation in the state of residence (Q38), relationship between culture and perception of ʹtruly Slovakʹ (Q39), relationship between minorities and majorities in the perspective of culture affairs (Q40) and relationship between minority culture and 18

Svetluša Surová

homeland and kinstate policies (Q41). All respondents that have answered, consider important to know the culture of their own nation. Similarly respondents think about knowing the culture of other nations and the culture of Serbian nation. On the relation between culture, state and ethnic groups, respondents have answered as follows: firstly, majority of respondents agree that ethnic affiliation should be chosen freely by every individual and not by a group or somebody else. Secondly, majority of respondents agrees that it is impossible for people who do not share Slovak customs and traditions to become 'truly Slovaks'. Thirdly, majority of respondents think it is possible for individuals to choose on their own feelings to be Slovaks. On contrary, most of the respondents, do not agree with opinions that it is not possible for people who do not live in Slovakia to be 'truly Slovaks' and that it is not possible to consider emigrants from Slovakia as 'truly Slovaks' (See table 5). On the issue of national minorities maintaining their distinct traditions and customs in the state where they live, the answers are almost equally divided in two camps: half of respondents thinks that it is better for society if groups maintain their distinct culture. The other half of respondents thinks, that it is better for society if minorities can maintain their distinct culture and at the same time that they should adopt a bit to larger society. When it comes to the protection and financial support for minority culture, majority of respondents (79.84%) share opinion that both states, where they live and the kin state should provide support for protection of their distinct customs and traditions. Table 5. Opinions on culture, ethnicity and ʹSlovak-nessʹ (Q39) Q 39. How much do you agree or disagree Agree strongly with each of the following statements?

Agree

Disagree

Disagree strongly

Do not know Total

On ethnic affiliation should decide every individual and not a group or someone else.

63.57%

26.36%

2.33%

0.78%

6.98%

129

It is impossible for people who do not share Slovak customs and traditions to be regarded as a true Slovaks.

29.46%

36.43%

27.91%

0.78%

5.43%

129

It is possible for individuals to decide on their own feelings to be Slovak.

36.43%

35.66%

9.30%

5.43%

13.18%

129

It is impossible for those who do not live on the territory of Slovak state to be true Slovaks.

0.78%

2.33%

44.19%

49.61%

3.10%

129

It is impossible to regard emigrants from Slovakia as being true Slovaks.

1.55%

0.78%

41.09%

51.94%

4.65%

129

5.5.

The 'lands' of diaspora

For the literature on multiculturalism and diaspora it is typical to use terms such as homeland and host land while discussing minorities namely immigrants and/or diaspora. However, analytical definitions do not always capture the meanings that people ascribe to the everyday 19

Svetluša Surová

words and their living experiences. Therefore, I decided to explore in this study how respondents perceive and understand the meanings of the terms homeland ('domovina'), motherland or fatherland ('vlasť'), country of their origin ('krajina pôvodu') and home ('domov'). These terms are used in public and political discourses, mainly regarding diaspora policies, in slightly different manner than their formal meanings would suggest. Formally, all the above mentioned terms refer to same things. That is to say, to oneʹs country and/or place or country of birth22. In public and political discourses these terms are used in reference to Slovakia. Slovakia is seen as motherland, homeland, native land of all Slovaks around the globe, irrespective of their place of birth. In Serbian public and political discourse, Slovaks living there are still viewed as ʹones migrated to Serbiaʹ rather than being ʹnative onesʹ, regardless of fact, that most of them were born there and that they have (only) Serbian citizenship. Four questions on perceptions of the ʹlandsʹ, were actually asking the same thing, since the terms used are synonymous. The reason for this was to see if there are any differences between perceptions on mass level and journalistic or political narratives. First question (Q42) was concerning perception of homeland. Majority of respondents (77.24%) answered that they perceive Serbia to be their homeland. The others, consider Slovakia (9.76%), former Yugoslavia (7.32%), and small number (2.44%) consider equally Serbia and Slovakia or Vojvodina as homeland. Second question (Q43) was asking about perceptions of motherland or fatherland among respondents. Again most of the respondents (76.42%) consider Serbia to be their motherland. The others perceive Slovakia (9.76%), ex Yugoslavia (4.88% ), or at the same time Slovakia and Serbia (3.25%) and Vojvodina (1.63%) for their motherland. The third question (Q44) was relating to the country of origin. The vast majority of respondents perceive Slovakia (73.60%), than Serbia (16.80%), further at the same time Slovakia and Serbia (3.20%) and lastly former Yugoslavia (2.40%) to be their country of origin. Country of origin formally means oneʹs country as well legally refers to oneʹs place or country of birth, the respondents perceive this term differently. Majority of respondents understand country of origin as a place from where their ancestors came, meaning Slovakia. This is good example how the meanings and the perceptions of the words, especially in this case the notion of origin, are understood differently. This fact can be explained by the influence of public and political discourses of both states, Slovak and Serbian on people's understandings. It is usually referred to Slovaks living in Serbia in the way that they originated in and are coming from Slovakia, although majority of them was born in Serbia. Last question on ʹlandʹ was concerning the perception of the home. The largest number of respondents perceive Serbia as their home (78.05%), than Slovakia (9.76%), Vojvodina (5.69%), former Yugoslavia (2.44%), lastly both Slovakia and Serbia (2.44%). Further, respondents were asked to which country they feel to belong the most. More than half of respondents feel that they belong the most to Serbia (54.76%), the others feel that they belong at the same time to Serbia and Slovakia (31.75%), only to Slovakia (8.73%), while small percentage didn’t know to answer on this question.

6. Discussion/conclusion The web-based survey shows that members of the Slovak diaspora living in Serbia have multiple identities. They hold different national and ethnic identities and these distinct collective identities are not excluding each other. While coexisting, national and ethnic 20

Svetluša Surová

identities of Slovaks in Serbia can either have equal value or vary in force. Most of the respondents identify themselves at the same time with Serbian state and Slovak ethnic group. For the rest respondents, ethnic identity is stronger and national identity is weaker. Interesting fact is, that national identity is understood by respondents in civic sense, while respondents identify with the state and not with ʹtitularʹ or majority Serbian nation. Whereas, Slovak identity is perceived in combination of essentialist and constructivist manner. Survey identifies positive attitudes of respondents towards emigration. If they could, they would preferably migrate anywhere outside of Serbia, mostly to Slovakia but not outside of Europe. This could be explained first of all, with overall bad socio-economic situation in Serbia but also with their limited if any migration experiences and residencies abroad. Further, Slovakia is the country to which they feel close, the official language is their mother language, some of them studied in Slovakia and some of them hold Slovak citizenship. Questions on ethnicity and self-identification shows that assigning Slovak ethnic categorization to one-self is very high and strong among respondents. Self- ascription of ethnic affiliation by respondents is mainly done by using noun Slovak ('Slovák', 'Slovenka'), which even more intensifies the meaning of ethnic self-identification. Consequently, it indicates great proudness on being Slovak. Respondents preserve strong awareness and pride of their Slovak identity. Similarly as with self-identification, respondents consider important for being ʹtruly Slovakʹ objective characteristics (e.g. language, ancestry, religion). Other factors such as being born in Slovakia, long-term residence in Slovakia, Slovak citizenship, recognition of political institutions and legal regulations of Slovak republic are not so important for respondents. Perception of ʹtruly Slovakʹ reflects objective political status of respondents in terms of citizenships, since most of respondents don’t hold Slovak nationality as well their personal and cultural characteristics (residency, language, descent). Language identity is very important to respondents as well. There is a good legal environment in Serbia guaranteeing language rights for minorities, which makes it possible to preserve, maintain and use minority languages in schools, public and state spheres. In this study was shown how language rights can and really do strengthen language identity of minorities. Furthermore, culture and cultural identity of Slovaks living in Serbia has great significance to respondents. They believe it is relevant to know their own Slovak culture. Also respondents believe it is important to know about culture of Serbian and others nations. This imply, that appreciations of oneʹs own needs can lead to recognition of the needs or the rights for others. Paradoxically, respondents understand their ethnicity in terms of objective characteristic such as language, descent, culture, traditions, religion but at the same time, they appreciate also the freedom in choosing oneʹs identity based on oneʹs own feeling. Respondents regard their distinct traditions, customs and culture as very salient and half of them think that for the heterogeneous societies it is better if distinct culture can be maintained for minorities. While the other half of the respondents belief, that it is better for society if minorities preserve their culture but also accommodate to majority in society. Majority of respondent share opinion, that their cultural affairs should be protected and supported by both, Serbian and Slovak state. Even in spite of very strong Slovak ethnic identity, high ethnic pride and consciousness, distinct ethnic identification doesn’t cause decreased identification with the state where they live. Majority of respondents consider Serbia as their homeland, motherland, fatherland, birthplace and most importantly home. And to the place where they live, they feel much closer than to Slovakia, which they perceive as the country from which their ancestors originally migrated more than two hundred years ago. 21

Svetluša Surová

This survey indicates that respondents arbitrarily, whether consciously or subconsciously, perceive national and ethnic categories used in survey. Distinct identities are perceived in a different manner. National identification is understood in civic terms while ethnic identification is understood in both, essentialistic and constructivist way. This finding shows, that civic and ethnic values are not mutually excluding experiences as dichotomous academic analytical categories in nationalism studies suggest. In addition, respondent's comprehensions, perceptions, awareness and feelings go beyond legal definition of the nations too. Both national and ethnic identifications can be equally and concurrently felt and maintained. Determining factors for multiple identities of Slovaks living in Serbia with not conflictual or competing elements of national and ethnic identities, I see in combination of being born in Serbia, having Serbian citizenship and long-term residency here plus having the possibilities and legal rights to preserve and maintain their own distinct Slovak culture, language and identity. This study suggests and gives a hint that ethnic values do not have to necessary exclude civic values, further that distinct national and ethnic identifications can coexist in a mutually nonconflictual way, that strong ethnic identification among minority does not cause weaker identification with the state where they live or does not create stronger identification with other so called kin-state. Therefore it would be beneficial to do further research on the importance of civic and ethnic values, perceptions of identity, citizenship, length of residency and minority rights for collective identifications of minorities and/or diasporas.

Svetluša Surová

Bibliography BAUBÖCK, Rainer.- FAIST, Thomas eds. (2010). Diaspora and Transnationalism. Concepts, Theories and Methods. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Brien K. Ashdown, Judith L. Gibbons, Jana Hackathorn, Richard D. Harvey. (2011). The influence of social and individual variables on ethnic attitudes in Guatemala. Psychology, 78-84. doi:10.4236/psych.2011.22013 Brubaker, R. (2005). The ‘diaspora’ diaspora. Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol. 28 No. 1 January 2005, 1-19. Cambridge dictionaries online. (nedatováno). Získáno 11. February 2016, z http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/identity Carles Boix and Susan C. Stokes (ed.). (2009). The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics. Cohen, R. (2008). Global Diasporas. An introduction. . New York: Routledge Taylor&Francis Group. Collyer, M. (2013). Emigration Nations. Policies and Ideologies of Emigrant Engagement. Palgrave Macmillan. David Marsh and Gerry Stoker (ed.). (2010). Theory and Methods in Political Science. Third Edition. Hampshire and New York: Palgrive Macmillan. David Mccrone and Frank Bechhofer. (2015). Understanding national identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dufoix, S. (2008). Diasporas. Berkeley and Los Angelos: University of California Press. Eriksen, T. H. (2010). Ethnicity and Nationalism. Third Edition. Antropological Perspectives. New York: Pluto Press. Esman, M. J. (2009). Diasporas on the Contemporary World. Cambridge: Polity Press. Fearon, J. D. (1999). What is identity (as we now use the word)? Získáno 5. September 2015, z https://web.stanford.edu/group/fearon-research/cgi-bin/wordpress/wpcontent/uploads/2013/10/What-is-Identity-as-we-now-use-the-word-.pdf Fedor, C.-G. (2014). Towards a Postmodern Approach of Ethnic Community. POSTMODERN OPENINGS, Volume 5(Issue 2), pp. 71-80. doi:http://postmodernopenings.com/archives/1583 Gamlen, A. (2006). Diaspora engagement policies: What are they, and what kinds of states use them? . University of Oxford (Oxford, ESCR Centre on Migration, Policy and Society). Získáno 25. MArch 2015, z http://www.ssrc.org/workspace/ Gamlen, A. (2008). Working paper No. 63. Why Engage Diasporas? . University of Oxford (Oxford, ESCR Centre on Migration, Policy and Society). Načteno z https://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/fileadmin/files/Publications/working_papers/WP_2008/ WP0863%20A%20Gamlen.

Svetluša Surová

Gamlen, A. (2011). Working paper No 31 . Creating and destroying diaspora strategies. University of Oxford (Oxford, International Migration Institute. Získáno 25. March 2015, z http://www.migration.ox.ac.uk/odp/pdfs/WP31%20Creating%20and%20Destroying% 20Diaspora%20Str Gil S Epstein and Odelia Heizler Cohen. (2015). Ethnic identity: a theoretical framework. IZA Journal of Migration 4 (1), 1-11. doi:10.1186/s40176-015-0033-z Glaser, D. (1958). Dynamic of ethnic identification. American sociological review, pp. 31-40. Guibernau, M. (1999). Nations without States. Political communities in a Global Age. Cambridge: Polity Press. Howard, J. A. (2000). Social psychology of identities. Annual review of sociology, Vol. 26, pp. 367-393. Chandra, K. (2006). What is ethnic identity and does it matter? Jenkins, R. (2014). Social identity (Key ideas). New York: Routledge. John Hutchinson, Anthony D. Smith (ed.). (1996). Ethnicity. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. Judith L. Gibbons, B. K. (2010). Ethnic identification, attitudes, and group relations in Quatemala. Psychology, 116-127. doi:10.4236/psych.2010.12016 Kanchan Chandra ed. (2012). Constructivist theories of ethnic politics. New York: Oxford University Press. Klaus J. Bade, Pieter C. Emmer, Leo Lucassen, Jochen Oltmer. (2013). The Encyclopedia of European Migration and Minorities. From the seventeenth century to the present. Cambridge University Press. Koos, A. K. (2012). Common origin, common power, or common life: the changing landscape of nationalisms. Open journal of political science, pp. 45-58. doi:10.4236/ojps.2012.23006 Kun, P. (2015). European Identity between Ethnic and Civic Identities. Journal of Identity and Migration Studies, Volume 9(Number 2), pp. 2-17. Získáno 13. december 2015, z http://www.emigration.ro/jims/Vol9_no2_2015/JIMS_Vol9_No2_2015_pp2_17_KUN.pdf Laitin, D. D. (1998). Identity in Formation: The Russian-speaking Populations in the Near Abroad. USA: Cornell University Press. Lawler, S. (2014). Identity: sociological perspectives. Cambridge: Polity Press. Liah Greenfeld and Jonathan Eastwood. (2009). Nationalism and national identity: definitional issues. The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics. (C. B. Stokes, Editor) Oxford Handbooks online. Získáno 15. February 2016 Louis M. Rea, Richard A. Parker. (2014). Designing and conducting survey research. A comprehensive guide. Fourth Edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass A Wiley Brand. 24

Svetluša Surová

Mosley, L. (2013). Interview research in political science. New York: Cornell University Press. Nagel, J. (December 1995). American Indian ethnic renewal: politics and resurgence. American sociological review, Vol. 60(No. 6), pp. 947-965. Neuman, W. L. (1991). Social research. Methods. Boston, London: Allyn and Bacon. Oxford Dictionaries. Language Matters. (nedatováno). Získáno 5. September 2015, z http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/identity Penn, E. M. (2008). Citizenship versus ethnicity: the role of institutions in shaping identity choice. The journal of politics, pp- 956-973. Peter J. Burke and Jan E. Stets. (2009). Identity theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rogers Brubaker and Frederick Cooper. (2000). Beyond "identity". Theory and Society, 1-47. Safran, W. (1991). Diasporas in Modern Societies: Myths of Homeland and Return. Diaspora: A Journal of Transnational Studies 1, no. 1 , 83-99. Sheffer, G. (nedatováno). Diaspora. Encyclopedia Princetoniensis. The Princeton Encyclopedia of Self-determination. Získáno 25. March 2015, z http://pesd.princeton.edu/?q=node/232 Swayd, S. S. (2014). Identity, "Identology" and World Religions. Open Journal of Philosophy, Volume 4(Number 1), 30-43. doi:10.4236/ojpp.2014.41006 Šatava, L. (2009). Jazyk a identita etnických menšin. Možnosti zachování a revitalizace. Praha: Sociologické nakladatelství (SLON). T. M. Newcomb, R. H. Turner, P. Converse. (1965). Social psychology. The Study of Human Interaction. . New York : Holt, Rinehar and Winston Inc. Tom W. Smith and Seokho Kim. (2006). World opinion. National pride in comparative perspective: 1995/96 and 2003/04. International journal of public opinion research, 18(1), 127-136. Vertovec, S. (2005). Working paper No. 13. The Political Importance of Diasporas. . University of Oxford (Oxford, ESCR Centre on Migration, Policy and Society). Získáno 25. March 2015, z https://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/fileadmin/files/Publications/working_papers/WP_2005/ Steve Wimmer, A. (2013). Ethnic boundary making. Institutions, Power, Newtworks. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. Zákon č. 474/2005 Z. z. o Slovákoch žijúcich v zahraničí a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov v znení neskorších predpisov. (2005). Др Владимир Ђурић, Проф. др Дарко Танасковић, Проф. др Драган Вукмировић, Петар Лађевић (ed.). (2014). Попис становништва, домаћинстава и станова 2011. у Републици Србији. ЕТНОКОНФЕСИОНАЛНИ И ЈЕЗИЧКИ МОЗАИК СРБИЈЕ.

Svetluša Surová

Београд: Републички завод за статистику. Získáno 26. February 2016, z http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/Popis2011/Etnomozaik.pdf

Documents Ministarstvo državne uprave i lokalne samouprave. 'Izvod iz registra nacionalnih saveta nacionalnih manjina'. Ministarstvo državne uprave i lokalne samouprave. http://mduls.gov.rs/latinica/dokumenta-nacionalni-saveti-manjina.php. Retrieved: January 5, 2016. Republički zavod za statistiku. 'Popis stanovništva, domaćinstava i stanova 2011. u Republici Srbiji'. Republički zavod za statistiku. http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/Popis2011/Popisni%20atlas%202011.pdf Republički zavod za statistiku. 'Popis stanovništva, domaćinstava i stanova 2011. u Republici Srbiji. Stanovništvo. Nacionalna pripadnost. Podaci po opštinama i gradovima'. Republički zavod za statistiku. http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/Popis2011/Nacionalna%20pripadnostEthnicity.pdf Republički zavod za statistiku. 'Popis stanovništva, domaćinstava i stanova 2011. u Republici Srbiji. Stanovništvo. Veroispovest, maternji jezik i nacionalna pripadnost. Podaci po opštinama i gradovima'. Republički zavod za statistiku. http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/Popis2011/Knjiga4_Veroispovest.pdf Serbia. State periodical report submitted on 2/02/2015. 'European charter for regional or minority languages. Third periodical report presented to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe in accordance with Article 15 of the Charter'. Council of Europe Statut Autonomne pokrajine Vojvodine. "Službeni list APV", br. 20/2014, član 24. Ustav republike Srbije, Službeni glasnik RS, broj 98/2006 (Constitution of Republic of Serbia, Official Gazette, No 98/2006) Zákon č. 474/2005 Z. z. o Slovákoch žijúcich v zahraničí a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov v znení neskorších predpisov

Notes 1

Historical migration of the Slovaks to the Lower land was not international in current sense of thinking and former migrants didn’t not cross formal territorial borders of the state. It was in-migration within the borders of Austria and later Austro-Hungarian kingdom. Through this in-migration Slovak ancestors did cross national, cultural, religious and linguistic boundaries in Bade at all. 2 The Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenians (KSCS) was the first Yugoslav state formed on 1st December 1918 3 KSCS was renamed the Kingdom of Yugoslavia on 3 October 1929, in 1946 was Yugoslavia renamed the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia, in 1963 the country was renamed as the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY). SFRY broke in the beginning of the 1990ʹs first into five countries, from which Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) encompass Republic of Serbia and Republic of Montengero. FRY renamed in 2003 till 2006 in State union of Serbia and Montenegro, which disintegrated in 2006 when was established Republic of Serbia.

Svetluša Surová 4

The dominant religion in Serbia is Orthodox Christian (84,6%), followed by Catholic (5%), Islam (3%), Protestant (1%) and other religions in 'Popis stanovništva, domaćinstava i stanova 2011. u Republici Srbiji. Stanovništvo. Veroispovest, maternji jezik i nacionalna pripadnost. Podaci po opštinama i gradovima'. 5 The official and most widely used language is Serbian; about 88% of people use it as a mother tongue. The official script is Cyrillic. Other recognized and traditionally used minority languages and scripts in Serbia are: Albanian, Bosnian, Bulgarian, Bunjevac, Vlach, Hungarian, Macedonian, German, Romani, Romanian, Ruthenian, Slovak, Ukrainian, Croatian and Czech in State periodical report. In APV six languages are in official use, namely Serbian, Hungarian, Slovak, Croatian, Romanian, and Ruthenian in Statut APV. 6 Or lately designated only as Kosovo. Designation as Kosovo is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo Declaration of Independence. 7 Republički zavod za statistiku. 'Popis stanovništva, domaćinstava i stanova 2011. u Republici Srbiji'. Republički zavod za statistiku. 8 The largest ethnic group is Serbian, constituting 83,3% of total population. Of the ethnic minorities, the largest group is Hungarian (3,5%), followed by Roma (2,1%) and Bosniaks communities (2%). Other ethnicities constitute less than 1% of total population. 9 Republički zavod za statistiku. 'Popis stanovništva, domaćinstava i stanova 2011. u Republici Srbiji. Stanovništvo. Nacionalna pripadnost. Podaci po opštinama i gradovima'. Republički zavod za statistiku. 10 Currently are in Serbia registered twenty one national councils of national minorities. These national minorities established their councils in the following chronological order: Hungarian, Croatian, Ruthenian, Slovak, Romanian, Ukrainian, Roma, Bunjevci, Bosniak, Bulgarian, Greek, Macedonian, Egyptian, Vlach, German, Slovenian, Czech, Albanian, Askhali, Jewish, and lastly Montenegrin in Ministarstvo državne uprave i lokalne samouprave. 'Izvod iz registra nacionalnih saveta nacionalnih manjina'. Ministarstvo državne uprave i lokalne samouprave. 11 Oxford Dictionaries. Language Matters. 12 Cambridge dictionaries online. 13 For example, Koos (2012) distinguish principal components of nationalism labelled as ethno-cultural, greatpower-civic and welfare-civic or Greenfeld and Eastwood (2009) classify nationalism in individualistic-civic, collectivistic-civic and collectivistic-ethnic type. 14

Cambridge dictionaries online. Oxford Dictionaries. Language Matters. 16 According to Glaser (1958, 31) ethnic categories provide a universalistic frame of reference for ordering social relationship. 17 From 31 ethnic groups in Serbia only 7 had positive population growth e.g. Goranci, Russians, Yugoslavs, Bošnjaci, Albanians, Moslims and Roma in Djurić et al. (2014). 18 Djurić at all. 19 In the strict legal sense, Slovak living abroad is a person that doesn’t have permanent residence in Slovak republic and either is a citizen of Slovakia or is not citizen of Slovakia but preserves national awareness and holds Slovak nationality or at least hers or his ancestor in direct line hold Slovak nationality In: Zákon č. 474/2005 Z. z. o Slovákoch žijúcich v zahraničí a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov v znení neskorších predpisov, článok 1, odsek druhý. 20 Oxford dictionary matters. 21 Ustav republike Srbije, Službeni glasnik RS, broj 98/2006 22 Homeland means a person’s or a people’s native land (Oxford dictionaries) or the country you were born in (Cambridge dictionaries). Motherland refers to one’s native country (Oxford dictionaries). Native as adjective is associated with the place or circumstances of a person’s birth (Oxford dictionaries) or relating to or describing someone's country or place of birth or someone who was born in a particular country or place (Cambridge dictionaries). 22 Using the word native as adjective referring to ‘a non-white original inhabitant of a country’ is considered to be problematic, old-fashioned and due to its associations with a colonial European outlook it can have negative connotation and it may cause offence. Fatherland is defined as person’s native country, especially when referred to in patriotic terms (Oxford dictionaries) or as the country in which you were born, or the country with which you feel most connected (Cambridge dictionaries). The word home refers to place where ones lives permanently or to distinct country where one was born or has been settled on a long-term basis or relating to the place where one lives and relating to oneʹs own country (Oxford dictionaries). 15