During the years 1997-98 a comprehensive study was conducted among the opinion making personalities of the 13 registered ethnic and national minorities of Hungary. In our point of view, this group consists of the dominant figures of cultural life, political representation, civil organizations, and the media. The research, using the methods of in-depth interviews, attempted to throw light on various aspects of the minority status in contemporary Hungarian society that affect minorities individually, but similarly in many respects. The research focused on the struggle against assimilation, which includes maintaining the minority language and culture, preserving national identity, realizing political representation, and organizing the group as an entity. Thus the main objective of the research was to reveal the causal patterns in the problematic of assimilation, that the national minorities of Hungary are dealing with today. Therefore, the primary goal of the comparative study was to discover and categorize the differences and similarities in the life of the 13 minorities of the country.

Studying ethnicities or national groups is a complex and often contradictory, therefore always a challenging task for the researcher. One of the reasons for this is that defining ethnic or national groups is done in different ways from country to country and from region to region. Furthermore, because of the changing historic and social circumstances, ethnicity and nationality, attitudes toward minorities, and consequently the identity of minorities, are continuously changing notions. Taking into account the instability of these notions we must approach the subject with the consideration of social-psychological, historic, political, and sociological influences as well, which play an important role in the formulation and preservation of minority identities.

Today the subject of ’identity’, national or ethnic identity, is considered a classic field of social psychology and minority sociology (Tajfel, 1980; Giles, 1977b). This tradition can best be seen in the United States, since sociologists have been present all the way along the route from the ’melting pot’ to ’multiculturalism’. Much theoretical and empirical work has been done on issues of assimilation and integration (Armstrong, 1982; Gordon, 1964; Smith, 1986), topics that constitute the primary areas of minority research in Hungary as well. One branch of researching minorities is to investigate the historic, linguistic, cultural and sociological characteristics of one specific group. Apart from raising self-consciousness and archiving, the importance of such studies can be found in communicating the characteristics of a minority group toward the majority society. Another branch of research is the examination and comparison of several groups from a specific point of view, thus giving a general picture in a specific context (Radó, 1992).

The current study discusses the results of a research project that combined the two approaches: it examined several minority groups, but took a wider perspective, and attempted to offer an overall picture of the situation of minorities. In this way the research itself was meant to fill a gap, since we intended to deal with all the registered ethnic and national minorities in Hungary, and learn about their situation with regard to the issues of identity and assimilation. The people who were interviewed in the course of the project — considering their specific situation within the minority groups — had insights into the situation both from inside and from a wider perspective. Therefore, members of the minority elites did not only offer an optimal sample because they are familiar with the situation of minorities, but also because they form a group that is occupied with minorities during their everyday activities. Learning about their activities we gained important information about the past, present and future problems of minorities.

The process of self-definition is closely connected to the will of the adaptive person to find his/her place in the complex social relations of society. Thus the function of finding an identity can practically be equated with finding one’s place among the large groups of humanity, some of which the person can define as his/her own, while other groups are seen as the ’other’ (Tajfel, 1980).

Members of minority groups use different strategies to change their position for the better and acquire a more positive social identity. Tajfel points out two separate individual actions: users of the first strategy formulate their identities from in-group comparisons, which means that instead of comparing themselves to members of the dominant group, they seek opportunities for comparison within their in-group. The users of the second strategy attempt to leave their group within which they do not find a source of positive identification. This move usually takes the form of people adapting to the customs of the dominant group, by following majority norms in their behavior, thus striving towards assimilation. Tajfel identifies two conditions under which the leaving of one’s group can take place: either „there aren’t any objective obstacles to leave the group" or „deserting the group does not clash with important values that are inherent parts of the social identity which is acceptable to the person" (Tajfel, 1980:33).

Identity, and especially ethnic or national identity, is dependent on the changing social context and personal traits, offering a highly complex and ever changing picture. From the point of view of this research project, it is important to keep in mind that it has been found that the decay of communication between social groups, the disregard for the cultural values of other groups, and the formalization of co-operation, will result in minority complexes and the weakening of identity (Hódi, 1992). From the perspective of the preservation of national/ethnic identities, these are issues of such importance that they should be taken into account by any minority researcher doing empirical studies on the subject. The researcher should always avoid schematization and generalization of ethnicities and nationalities, since all minorities follow a specific developmental pattern, meet specific obstacles, and thus have different chances of survival.

Political changes in the past decade and the democratization of the country affected minority policy a great deal. Although some of the changes were not particularly visible, they meant a significant change in the area. During the years of state socialism there was great silence about minority questions which affected Hungarians living outside the borders of Hungary and minorities living within the country as well (Fehér, 1993). Hungary did not have a minority policy; neither did it serve as a ’mother nation’ (country of origin) as a result of the internationalist politics. Officially four minority groups were registered in Hungary in this period: German, Slovakian, Romanian and South-Slavic (Yugoslavian) which included Croats, Slovenes and Serbs. Gypsies were not considered an ethnic or national minority, but rather a social category. No minority law existed which would have served to protect the rights of people who fell victims of a non-violent, but purposeful assimilation.

With the new atmosphere of democratization in the 1980s, the problem of Hungarians in minority position (primarily as a result of the more and more worrying situation in Romania), and the issue of minorities within Hungary became a topic of discussion. A myriad urgent questions arose that had been swept under the carpet, expecting immediate solutions. It was the founding of the Ethnic Board (Nemzetiségi Kollégium) in 1989 which meant the first milestone, followed by the National and Ethnic Minority Secretariat quickly after, necessary because the first did not have decision making competence. The Secretariat was the first to take on the ’minority question’ formally and officially. In 1990 the National and Ethnic Minority Institute took over the role of the Secretariat and the handling of minority issues. In the same year a Minority Codex was drafted to regulate minority rights. The common institute of national councils was founded in 1991, named as the Minority Round Table, including 13 minorities by this time (Ruthenians and Ukrainians did not form separate groups, but at that time Jews still took part). After a long debate the Minority Law was passed by the Parliament in 1993, which received ambivalent reactions from the minorities. In 1994-95 local and national minority self-governments were set up following elections. The issue of parliamentary representation had been a matter of constant discussion since the changes, an issue still not solved. In 1998 the Parliament rejected the proposal presented to them.

In the content analysis of the approximately 100 in-depth interviews, the specific and common problems related to the position of minorities became circumscribed. Great priority was given to the narrative aspect of the methodology, from which we gained our results by content analysis. The interviews were therefore structured, but at the same time open to the subjective and personal experiences and opinions that the research aimed at examining the most. We attempted to examine issues that our interviewees, the representatives of minority elites, found important. The discussion of these themes will be illustrated by quotations from the interviews. However, the quotations are not intended to underline a statement, but rather to demonstrate it. In order to maintain the anonymity of our interviewees, we used the person’s ethnic or national background, and the area of his/her main activities instead of their names.

Assimilation of a minority, and consequently the loss of and the attempts to preserve language and culture, are the best indicators of the minority experience. However, these phenomena are the most difficult to research and interpret. Our research paid special attention to assimilation, since all minorities in Hungary — apart from the largest group of Gypsies, which faces mainly social difficulties — are fighting a lost battle against ever increasing assimilation and its consequences.

The threat of disappearance of minority identity and language is intertwined with other topics of our research, therefore we must recognize that it is a phenomenon affecting the entire life spheres of minorities struggling for survival. Not only does assimilation change the structure of language usage and cultural habits, but it also affect several aspects of the minority — majority relationship. It confines the limits of minority education, minority media, political representation, and indirectly sets the boundaries of the relationship with the mother nations.

The ethnic/national minority identity of members and elite members of these groups is difficult to grasp because of the political, social and historical circumstances which made people’s sense of identity covert rather than overt. The most important basis of minority identity in Hungary is the minority language and culture, although there is great variety across the groups. This variation is best described by the diminishing role of language and the weakening role of folk culture in organizing the group. Our respondents unanimously referred to a switch in language usage and to a strong tendency of cultural assimilation. The research findings clearly suggested that minorities in Hungary — with the exception of Gypsies — regardless of existing differences and internal disagreements, all face assimilation in an advanced stage. In spite of significant differences in the evaluation of the situation, in the stage of assimilation, and in the understanding of how irreversible the process is, the primary enemy of all minorities is assimilation.

There can be a number of reasons behind the loss of minority language and the acquisition of the majority culture, customs and life-style. Our respondents differentiated between natural and forced assimilation. Natural assimilation takes place as a result of the co-existence of different ethnic groups, which causes cultures to interact. The dominant culture and language takes over, while the minority group looses its characteristics that distinguished it from the majority society. The best examples of natural assimilation are mixed marriages, where the children usually carry on the dominant language and culture. Most of our respondents considered this type of assimilation normal and natural, about which there is no point to fight, even if it is a sad and disappointing phenomenon. It is interesting to note that natural assimilation was more often mentioned by smaller minority groups, such as the Polish, Greek, Bulgarian, Slovene, Ruthenian, Ukrainian and Armenian minorities, where the elite members of the group considered assimilation a natural result of the co-existence of ethnicities.

We have found a couple of comments from members of larger groups which suggested that assimilation is a result of a natural process:

Any action undertaken with the intention to destroy minority language and minority culture, to make them similar to the majority, is considered forced assimilation. The period of forty years before the transition is rich in policies intending to assimilate minorities. These policies affected all minorities, including those with a large membership and strong ethnic identities. Gypsies were forced to leave behind their traditional activities and residences, they were forced to learn about the socialist ideology by joining the heavy industry. We can also mention the Slovaks, a large number of whom were forced to move, as a result of the population exchange, to Slovakia, to predominantly ethnic-Hungarian villages close to the border, while ethnic Hungarian families were forced to move to villages inhabited by almost only Slovakians previously.

After the second World War, in the name of collective punishment, Germans in Hungary were labeled guilty of war crimes and thousands of families had to leave the country. Consequently the rest of the German population quickly switched to the use of Hungarian language as a kind of self-defense.

The 1960 resolution, according to which minority schools should be transformed into bilingual schools, along with the pursuit of the 1960s to establish agricultural cooperatives and create centralized districts greatly contributed to the loss of minority identity and language.

The process of assimilation accelerated when cooperatives were introduced in Hungary, since the majority of Croats were peasants who owned land. In the fields they worked together with the Hungarians and there the communication was Hungarian. Since Croats lived in small villages, with the introduction of districts they had to join Hungarian towns or villages, and thus the children were taken to Hungarian schools by bus. (Croat — political representation, education)

As a result of the socialist ideology, the distorted minority policy, modernization, urbanization, and the transformation of minority education, language usage, traditions, and institutions that are meant to maintain national/ethnic identity have gone through an irreversible change. Therefore, from one generation to another members of minorities get further and further from the life-style defined by their minority status, rejecting the folk culture and language their grand-parents’ generation still represented and preserved.

Apart from Gypsies, 90% of our respondents argued that assimilation is in such an advanced stage that it is impossible to turn the process around, but even to stop it at this point is unlikely. According to our interviewees with a common effort and hard work the weakening of ethnic groups and assimilation could be slowed down.

It is different in case for each minority to what extent the situation is deemed tragic, and what means and strategies are used to slow down assimilation. Minorities are practically divided into two groups based on how dramatic they perceive assimilation is: first, we see minorities who are more or less satisfied with their situation, find it natural that minority groups take on the culture and language of the majority, despite the fact that their assimilation is in an advanced state. Armenians, Ukrainians and the Polish minority very clearly belong to this group.

Small minorities do not only accept assimilation as a necessary process, but they are generally more satisfied with their situation and evaluate their opportunities positively. This kind of optimism can be found among Bulgarians, Greeks, Ruthenians, Serbs and Slovenes.

The other category consists of minority groups in which members consider assimilation a real disaster and the decrease of population the death of the nation. Slovaks belong to this group — especially the more radical group mentioned in the introduction — who describe their own group as the least self-conscious, and thus the most highly exposed to assimilation.

Generally speaking we can argue that larger groups with long, historic roots in Hungary are dissatisfied with their situation in society and blame the prevailing system for their ever diminishing role. These groups fear the completion of the assimilation in the near future, find the threat of annihilation tragic, and they feel that the disappearance of the culture and language of a group with deep historic roots is not only a loss for the minority, but for the Hungarian majority as well. Apart from Slovaks, also Germans, Croats and Romanians feel this way.

Representatives of the Roma minority perceive the situation of the group in a very negative light, very pessimistically for other reasons. In spite of the great variety of opinions, the 21 interviewees unanimously describe a disadvantage characterizing the minority group which is practically impossible to overcome. An important difference between the Roma and other minorities is that it is not assimilation or cultural issues that threaten them most. Our interviewees emphasize the failure of integration processes when they talk about their current situation and future prospects. With the political and economic changes, with the withdrawal of a quasi social support (i.e. the disappearance of compulsory employment, social benefits, etc.) Gypsies became the primary victims of the transition. The widespread prejudices and discriminative attitudes of the majority population toward Gypsies aggravate their difficult social status. Further difference between the situation of the Romas and the other 12 minority groups is that the status, the space for cultural and political self-expression and opportunities have clearly become better for the other 12 groups, it is precisely since 1990 that the Romas are faced with the most difficult economic and social crisis. According to most of our respondents the guarantees of the minority law and the introduction of other democratic institutions do not improve the difficult circumstances under which Gypsies are living.

Another interesting element to take into consideration is how the minorities view -from the perspective of assimilation - the effects of the democratic developments on the political and cultural organization and national consciousness of minority groups.

According to our interviewees, the changes of the last 10 years positively affected the development of the minorities other than the Romas. Building up the democratic institutions, widening the boundaries of political and cultural opportunities for minorities induces processes that are antagonistic to assimilation, and thus strengthened the national/ethnic identity of the communities. Regardless to the extent to which these processes can help preserving national minorities, all of our respondents agreed on the importance of the aforementioned changes. However, we find tremendous differences in how critical the opinions are about minority policies since the changes.

Undoubtedly, it was the smaller minorities that formulated less critical opinions about the statements of the minority law in connection with assimilation, and appreciated the legal registration of their group as minority groups. This type of satisfaction could be found among the Slovenes, Greeks, Polish, Bulgarian and Ukrainians.

Larger minorities with greater traditions were much more critical about the minority law and the minority policies of governments in power since the political changes.

In spite of the criticism of some, the majority of the opinions emphasize the assets of the changes.

There have been Roma interviewees as well who argued that the effects of the transition on ethnic identity can positively be evaluated.

Similarly to the critical evaluation of the present situation, our respondents were quite pessimistic about the future of their community, and the possible future developments. Opinions varied only in the extent to which they perceive the future in a negative light, because optimistic predictions were very rare.

In all 97 interviews, with regard to the future of the group, the number of years left for the minority group was mentioned, i.e. the question of how many years are left until the completion of the assimilation. The fact that practically all minorities have started the count-down is self-explanatory, no more than a few years or decades are predicted in most cases.

Representatives of the Roma minority ask a different sort of question: how many years will it take for the Gypsies to climb out of their serious social disadvantage and diminish the gap? Most of the interviewees do not see the necessary elements of the changes in merely economic terms. According to them political will as well as a change in attitude of the majority is necessary for the Romas to find their place in the society. With respect to the future predictions about the Gypsy minority overall, we find a very pessimistic picture, despite the fact that some (mainly representatives of self-governments) have faith in minority policies, and think that the situation of the Roma will improve.

We saw that people concerned with minority issues, people active in the preservation of the minority groups are defenseless against the assimilation process. The disappearance of linguistic and cultural characteristics distinguishing the community from other groups, the increasingly radical rejection of folk culture and language treasured by the older generations dominate the situation of minorities in Hungary. The significance and danger attributed to these processes are, however, diverse. Opinions on the long-term future developments range from tragic complaints to relatively optimistic ones which emphasize the naturalness of the phenomenon. The pessimism of the Romas is primarily rooted in the tremendous gap between them and the majority society, in the irreconcilable social disadvantage as well as in the failed integration. Furthermore, we found that the opinion-making members of larger and smaller groups have different attitudes about assimilation. Smaller groups do not see the situation as a crisis as opposed to groups with deep roots and larger membership. It is important to note however, that commitment to a minority groups is not necessarily dependent on how seriously one thinks of the threat of assimilation.

As discussed in the previous chapter, all the minorities in Hungary became victims of increasingly strong assimilative pressures. Consequently, language — with the diminishing role of other elements of community life — plays a more or less exclusive role in minority identity. In spite of a wide range of examples proving that after the linguistic shift a sense of belonging to a community can be maintained, representatives of the minority elites in our sample identify the phenomenon of the linguistic shift as the decline of the minority community.

From the analysis of the interviews it can be argued that national minorities in Hungary have more or less completed the linguistic shift. The difference we find between minorities is mainly in the evaluation of this shift, that is the kind of significance they attribute to the preservation and heredity of their language. Slovaks, Germans, Romanians and Croats with their rich historic roots in Hungary, groups which have been able to maintain their mother tongue for hundreds of years, witness with deep regret the rapid linguistic shift that has taken place in the past 50 years.

The core of the Serbian minority still existing in Hungary, which has a similarly rich and long history, lost its language and cultural traditions to a lesser extent than others. The Serbian elite was proud to present this phenomenon:

Furthermore, Serbian and Croatian respondents described the positive effects of the Balkan wars on language of these minorities besides the obvious negative consequences.

People who consider assimilation a natural process and bilingualism a natural concomitant of assimilation handle the phenomenon of linguistic shift in a much lighter way. Even though they also do their best to slow down the process by teaching the language, organizing cultural events, they do not consider it a tragedy, but rather a natural consequence of mixing cultures. It seems that these minorities do not insist on the exclusive use of the minority language either at official events or at home. It is mostly smaller minorities who belong to this group, such as the Polish, Bulgarian and the Greek minority.

The linguistic shift is not a result of the past 40 or 50 years in case of Armenians in Hungary. A large percentage of Armenians arrived to Transylvania in the 17^th century and have completely lost their mother tongue since then. Therefore in case of the largely assimilated Armenians it is not the language, but rather the preservation of culture and — as a result of assimilation, the Christian — religion that is in central to them.

Generational Differences in Language Usage

The restructuring of minority language can best be understood by looking at the different use of language by the different generations and the reasons behind these differences. Apart from a few minorities which are in a peculiar situation for reasons described earlier, we can find that it is the older generations who prefer the exclusive use of the minority language.

Usually the middle generation, those who heard the language from their parents when they were children, understand the language, and perhaps use it for the communication with their parents. This generation (aged 35-45) were affected by the school reforms of the 60s the most, therefore they did not attend or only partially attended education in their mother tongue. Our respondents belong to this category almost exclusively, thus most of them participated in the highly ineffective bilingual or language teaching schools. It is therefore comprehensible why they blame first of all the education system for the quick linguistic shift.

Undoubtedly, in the discussion of the linguistic shift, issues such as political ideologies on minorities, centralization of schools, agricultural cooperatives, etc. play equally important roles as education. People in our sample, precisely because of their activities are the most dedicated members of the minority groups, therefore almost all of them managed to learn the language somehow (through attending educational institutions in the mother land, through other sort of connections with the motherland, by language training, or simply by the fact that these people already belonged to the most dedicated families where inheriting the language was important).

The real shift in language took place in the children of this middle generation, that is among people of age 15-20, who practically do not speak the variant used by their grand-parents.

As a result of modernization, the life-style of families changed, many people were forced to leave their closed linguistic communities for work in the cities. With this kind of migration extended families lost their earlier role in the linguistic socialization of children. The negative effects of the last 40 years, mixed marriages, the lack of incentive of parents to speak the minority language to their children, the influence of Hungarian in all spheres of life, the weakening role of minority schooling all contributed to the linguistic shift taking place in merely a couple of decades.

From the early 90s a process we could call minority revival can be witnessed. All the minorities formulated their cultural institutions attempting to reach an increasingly broad audience. A number of organizations were founded to preserve the traditional culture, the activities of which vary on a wide scale especially in case of larger minorities — religious circles, groups preserving linguistic traditions, folk-dance clubs, choirs, tourist organizations, ethnographic clubs have been established. It seems that some of these communities manage to mobilize the youth who have departed from folk traditions and the minority language.

Elites of minorities living at the border of Hungary and the mother land have the hope that economic relations with the neighboring countries will have a positive effect on the maintenance of minority language, and will be a source of motivation for the young to learn the language.

Almost all the minorities living in Hungary are divided along several different dialects. These dialects, used primarily by the older generations are different from the literary language used by the population of the motherland and by the educational institutions. Clearly these dialects, similarly to the dialects of Hungarian or any other language, are on the verge of extinction as a result of standardization processes, and no linguistic movement can awaken them.

This phenomenon can best be identified within the German minority. The German language has a special status among minority languages since it is a language of global importance, and there is no doubt about its usefulness in society at large, apart from minority aspects. German children are much more keen on acquiring the literary variant than are other children of minorities. Therefore, despite the fact that German is a widespread language, the dialect spoken by the grand-parents’ generation is in the phase of complete disappearance.

The largest minority in Hungary, the Romas are in a peculiar situation with regard to language, having a much more distinct categorization than other communities. It is not only differences in dialect that we find between the use of language of communities, but the three main groups of Gypsies speak different languages as well. The majority of Gypsies belong to the so called Hungarian or Musician group, who have been speaking Hungarian language since the 19^th century, while the Vlah and Beasch Romas preserved their languages. The Vlah Gypsies speak the Romani language which most European Gypsies speak, a language considered the ancient Gypsy language, and the Beasch speak a 19^th century variant of Romanian.

Transmitting the language and culture to younger generations or teaching them within institutional frameworks raises serious questions among the highly heterogeneous Roma minority which is commonly treated as homogenous. The opinions of our interviewees belonging the different groups of the Roma minority suggest the multiplicity of the issue with regard to language. Representatives of different linguistic cultures have different angles on the issue.

It has been mentioned earlier that the Beasch and Vlah Romas, who have preserved their language, have nevertheless undergone a serious assimilation process in the last 50 years. Similarly to of other groups, the assimilation process was accompanied by the linguistic shift. Moreover, the fact that the Romani and Beasch languages have not been codified — in a way acceptable to everybody — creates further difficulties. Century-old ethnic discrimination which shows an increasing tendency since the transition imposed on Gypsies also influence the linguistic shift.

Regardless of the inner diversity of Gypsies from the viewpoint of language and ethnography, politically speaking they form one minority despite of the internal layers that can be found. Considering the low prestige of the group and the assimilating expectations coming from the majority, we can predict that the language will not spread outside the community or for public use. Apart from a small elite group whose intention is to preserve the Romani language, the language of interest representation and self-realization will most probably remain Hungarian for a long time. This fact will probably make further language loss unavoidable.

Summing up the information we received on the mother tongue and language use of minorities, we can conclude that all minorities are in the last stages of the linguistic shift. This has serious consequences for the future of the minorities. It becomes a legitimate question to ask how a community, that has lost its mother tongue, can secure its cultural identity and continuity. Naturally it is impossible to find a solution acceptable from a linguistic and cultural point of view to all the minorities. Nevertheless, the results of the research allow us to think that under certain conditions a minority that has lost its language and social basis could be preserved. Such a condition could be the realization of the group’s political emancipation, or the development of cultural self-organizations, as the institutional reinforcement of the cohesion within the group could awaken the people’s desire to belong to a minority group. Such conditions — as can be read in the quotations from the interviews — have increasingly been developing since the transition. Furthermore, for minorities that have a mother nation, it would be beneficial to strengthen the ties with that country. These connections could certainly revitalize the almost forgotten language and ethnic/national identity. Finally, it can also be argued that based on the often ambivalent opinions expressed in the interviews, several, simultaneously present factors determine the path of assimilation. It is therefore impossible to predict the future of minorities.