A Sample of Resilient Intercultural Coexistence in Ethnic Hungarian, Serbian and Bulgarian Communities in Western Romania

Abstract

This article sets out to highlight the way in which the phenomena of co-construction and territorial deconstruction make themselves apparent locally. We focused our study on Timiș County, core of the historical Banat region, for the reason that it is still an ethno-cultural mosaic linked to its cross-border space. We based our analysis on the exploitation of a specific bibliography and, especially, on a survey through questionnaire and interview. The regional socio-cultural identity of Banat was founded on the dialogue and intercultural co-construction that have been practised since 1718. The repeated processes of socio-spatial co-construction and deconstruction, due to the changes of sovereignty and limits, prove a remarkable identity resilience, Banat being a model of continuity of regional territoriality. In the current context of European integration and of regionalisation, these processes have been reactivated, with the ethnic minorities cultivating solidarity with their co-nationals over the border while also preserving solidarity with the present host country, Romania.

1. Introduction

Territories characterised by ethnic multiculturality have long been the subject of academic research aimed both at explaining the tensions and conflicts they experience (Foucher 1993; Balibar 2009) and at understanding the stimuli that lead to interculturality and peaceful coexistence (Meer and Modood 2012; McIvor 2019). In territories of this kind, co-construction and socio-territorial deconstruction display specific dynamics determined by the internal relationships of the groups living in the multicultural context. A part is also played by the external relationships they cultivate with the other minorities and with the larger socio-political groupings that encompass them (states, cross-border regions, supranational structures) and with which they are obliged to negotiate their status, organisation, functions, and the preservation of their identity.

Territories characterized by multiculturalism and interculturality are historical constructions, which evolve continuously, sometimes discreetly, sometime through rapid transformations, due to favourable circumstances for change. In the context of European integration and the reduction of the barrier role of borders, is it necessary for the old territorial solidarity to tend to be reactivated, today with cross-border enlargement? Are ethnic minority communities, living on either side of the border, primary vectors in this process of socio-territorial deconstruction and co-construction? What are the foundations of identity and the concrete mechanisms by which these changes take place?

The aim of our research is to understand the revealed phenomena and identify their meaning, rather than to achieve a deterministic model of cause-effect type.

Our chief objective in this article is to analyse the processes of co-construction and identity deconstruction in a space destined to be cross-border in nature, as they are reflected in the present-day representations and behaviours of the ethnic minorities of a County in western Romania.

The specific objectives are as follows:

• T identify the mechanismes of the identity construction of the minority ethnic communities in the cross-border area of Timiș County, with its specific features.
• To draw some types of representation of territoriality and territorial identity in the studied communities.
• To identify the way in which the studied communities interact with the ethno-cultural alterities, with the related ethnic group and with the host country Romania.
• To understand how intercultural coexistence occurs and how intercultural co-construction is achieved in the communities studied;
• To assess implications occuring from the deconstruction of the phenomena studied in the collective imaginary of the socio-territorial complex.

The central hypothesis of this study is that interculturality has been an essential factor in the construction of territory in Timiș County, while regional identity, combined with the practice of cross-border exchanges, continues to be relevant to the construction and territorial deconstruction of the Banat region.

Our working hypotheses are that:

• Historical processes (such as Habsburg colonizations, the construction of nation states after 1918, European integration) have influenced and continue to influence the preservation of the ethno-cultural identity of the ethnic minority communities studied.
• Cross-border communication between homologous minority ethnic communities is supported by their regional identity (belonging to the historical Banat).
• Multicultural coexistence in Timiș County has generated a resilient model of interculturality supported by a common regional identity, that of Banat.
• The permanent intercultural co-construction at society level, based on the regional identity, in the current context of European integration supports a process of deconstruction and territorial reconstruction in the cross-border Banat, to which ethnic minorities from Timiș County actively contribute.

We opted to take as our case study Timiș County (the core part of historical Banat), which borders Serbia and Hungary, for the reason that elements of the multiculturality and interculturality so characteristic of the historic Banat region are still preserved here. The active cross-border relations in which local communities have traditionally been involved played an important role in our choice of this county, which, during the communist regime, was the Romanian’s principal channel of communication with the world outside (with the West).

In the context of European integration, which has led to national borders becoming more permeable, the local population is experiencing new mechanisms of relating and solidarity (Popa 2006). The article looks at the degree to which these are leading to the deconstruction of the nation-based system of reference imposed during the communist regime and at whether they make possible co-constructive cross-border relating.

2. State of the Art

The analysis of the recent mutations of the processes of co-construction and socio-territorial deconstruction in a multicultural region, with cross-border traditions and vocation, appeals to a series of concepts debated in the literature. To substantiate this article, we used mainly the concepts of ethnic minority, co-construction and socio-territorial deconstruction, cross-border space and interculturality, which we consider indispensable for understanding the social transformations in Timiș County, for the last 30 years.

The concept of minority ethnic community is defined by bringing together other major concepts: ethnic group, ethnic minority, and community. The first of these refers to a group of people differentiated from the rest of the community by their racial origin or cultural background (Sollors 2001, pp. 4813–17). An ethnic minority is an ethnic group less numerous than the majority ethnic group in a country. The concept of community has among its defining features a feeling of belonging, social cohesion, mechanisms of self-preservation, and territory (Aitken 2009, pp. 221–25). These are also the basis for the processes of co-construction and territorial deconstruction.

Corroborating the definitions given by geographers (Costachie 2004; Smith 2020) and sociologists (Barth 1969; Rex 1998), We can deduce some specific features of the ethnic minorit, with an operational role in carrying out this work:

-

The ethnic minority lives on the same political territory as the majority population.

-

It is less numerous than the majority population.

-

It has cultural features that differentiate it: language, religion, material culture.

-

It has a set of immaterial cultural elements that compose its subjective ethos.

-

It has a mutual perception of otherness from the majority population and from other populations that are differentiated by the cultural elements listed above.

The origins of the ethnic groups in Timiș County, part of the historical region of Banat, are in the process of colonization initiated by the Habsburgs in the 18th century. After the expulsion of the Turks in 1716 and the conclusion of the Passarowitz Peace in 1718, the Habsburgs repopulated the parts of Banat affected by the long wars, especially the lowlands of Timiș County. Preference was given to colonizations with Catholic populations—especially Germans—from different regions of the vast empire (Kahl and Jordan 2004; Crețan et al. 2008), but also from outside the empire, such as the Catholic Bulgarians, since 1732 (Muntean 1990; Crețan 1999), even groups of Orthodox (Serbs), previously asserted in their revolts and struggles with the Turks and persecuted in the Ottoman Empire (Cerović 2005). The colonization of all these groups took place in waves, during the 18th century (Crețan 1999), so that in the 19th century the Hungarian communities were also consolidated, as a result of the increasing influence of Budapest in the administration of the region (Berecz 2021).

Norwegian sociologist Fredrick Barth believes that an ethnic group is defined by the border it builds in relation to other ethnic groups, rather than by its whole cultural heritage (Barth 1969). However, studies have shown that, in Banat, the boundaries between groups and communities were not hermetic, but favored co-construction and the interculturality (Neumann 1997, 2012; Leu 2007).

Co-construction is a concept that belongs to the postmodern way of thinking. Having initially been used to explain the part played by language in the construction of the shared language and ideology of groups, it was subsequently applied to other areas within socio-human research, such as the construction of identities and of social institutions. When people carry out activities in common, the co-participants become co-authors, irrespective of the role they play. Through their co-participation, people manage to take ownership of the performing and the result of the activity. This is an opportunity for axiologies, behaviours and identities to be constructed. A further consequence of co-construction is the sense of otherness, along with stereotypes (Jacoby and Ochs 1995). Constructed in the course of the negotiating process, these become foundations for group identity co-construction. Furthermore, “this notion of co-construction, of together carrying out our interactions with the others, lies at the basis of any intercultural encounter” (https://en.unesco.org/interculturaldialogue/core-concepts, accessed on 25 March 2021).

In Banat, the practice of intercultural exchanges within the region and cross-border cultural exchanges marked the personality of this historical region. In the context of European integration, there are processes of deconstruction—conceptual reconstruction of the territory, which have multiple implications in the relationship of minority ethnic groups with the host country and the related country.

Territorial deconstruction, as a poststructuralist approach, is based on the role of the experience of human groups in the historical development of place and region (Paasi 1991). Both a region and its boundaries are established in territory by means of political institutions. In the social imaginary, these concepts are far more fluid, since they constitute, at the same time, socio-cultural constructs that are the results of the process of intercultural negotiation. Subjective space and semioticised space do not always fit precisely on to the region or its limits (Gottmann 1973). Groups relate to the objective constructs of territory (the region and its boundaries) in ways that are conditioned by their historical and cultural experience (Painter 2010).

Observation of the social perception of territory and of socio-cultural practices shows up differences between reality as institutionally objectivised (with its territorial subdivisions) and the constructed reality of groups—particularly the cultural reinterpretation of territory and its boundaries. This is fed by any differences that exist between social reality and the politico-administrative status of the territory concerned. Studies published in the last few decades highlight differences of this kind, especially in cross-border spaces in which intercultural negotiation and regional feeling are very active (Newman and Paasi 1998; Paasi 1999; Paasi 2003a, 2003b; Perkmann 2003; Painter 2010; Hlihor 2011), while institutionally established territorial limits are criticised in the practice of social and economic relations (Balibar 2009; Decoville and Durand 2019).

The phenomenon becomes even more complex when we look at old historic regions that are fragmented by national borders, as is frequently the case in Central and Eastern Europe (e.g., Bucovina, Silesia, Tyrol). The presence of ethnic minorities whose origins lie in the neighbouring nation states accentuates the difference between the objective, institutional aspects of territorial construction and the fluid reality of social constructs, calling into question regional boundaries as currently established (Andreescu and Bardaș 2016). Banat is a region of this kind; it existed for centuries on the southern edge of first the Habsburg and then the Austro-Hungarian Empire, before becoming a cross-border region, divided up in 1919 between Romania, Serbia and Hungary.

In the context of the European integration process, the borders between the nation states established in the last century are becoming more flexible, and their functions increasingly depend on the regional decision-maker, to the detriment of the national central one. This is an opportunity for the development and assertion of municipal and county authorities in control of their own territory (Castañeda 2020).

Cross-border space is a term accepted by geographers as referring to an area extending to a depth of 30–60 km into the territory of two neighbouring countries on both sides of the national border. Its extent can be reduced or extended as the strength of cross-border ties changes (Săgeată 2014).

Free circulation, the democratisation of access to information, and changes in the epistemology of the socio-human sciences have generated constructivist-type debates regarding frontiers (Hlihor 2011; Smith 2020; Săgeată 2020). A frontier is no longer a limit but rather a multi-layered meeting zone between sovereignties, economies and people, a distinct and polymorphous space in which different subsystems interact and interpenetrate (Balibar 2009; Burridge et al. 2017).

The poststructuralist approach to cross-border spaces foregrounds the theme of territorial deconstruction, necessitated by the new socio-political context. In western Romania, territorial deconstruction highlights reactions to the “closing in” of the Cold War era. Here, the border drawn in 1919 cut through old functional geographical spaces such as Banat, Crișana (Partium) and Maramureș, in which the elements of difference in discourses regarding territoriality and the limits of territory are many in number: the liberalisation of cross-border circulation, the activation of cross-border social networks (Brubaker 1999), regional identity, and interculturalism.

As a social phenomenon, interculturality has been defined in a variety of ways in different contexts and on the basis of different premises. Meer and Modood (2012) focused on dialogue between the majority and minority populations. Levey (2012) tended, rather, to emphasise dialogue between human groups who bear different cultural distinctives.

The essence of interculturality lies in the process of social negotiation (Cantle 2012). If multiculturalism means mutual toleration, interculturalism corresponds to a higher level of dialogue between groups. The essential condition here is reciprocal recognition of distinct features, followed by intercultural exchange “as an experience of individual transformation with possibilities that are relational and repeatable in larger networks” (McIvor 2019, p. 345). Of course, this means not hybridisation but the reciprocal enriching of those who take part in the negotiating process through “their entering into resonance” on the basis of a shared purpose (Buzărnescu et al. 2004).

There is no doubt that negotiation and the exchange of cultural values also imply renunciation. What is essential is a recognition of the limitations of one’s own axiology and an orientation towards the search for norms both sides can accept (Hofstede 2001) the adoption of behaviours of accommodation, for opportunistic reasons (Camilleri et al. 1990). In Banat, the settling of colonists of different ethnic origins (sometimes even of groups who held antagonistic positions in their areas of origin) was followed by a process of adaptation and acculturation without losing ethnic identity (Neumann 1997). The colonists developed a feeling of regional belonging and adopted a shared axiological system in which a sense of property and material values are extremely important. Some studies have treated pragmatism and opportunism as features specific to the population of Banat, the consequence of a process of social learning (Adam 2008).

Recent studies, conducted in the context of intercultural communication, also indicate that the direct contact of individuals of different ethnicities reduces the incidence of their prejudices and the perception of otherness. This process is facilitated by equal status, the existence of common goals and the support of the authorities (Imperato et al. 2021).

It is beyond doubt that the Germans and Hungarians constituted the social elite, because of the positions they held in the apparatus of government, but interethnic cooperation on a wider scale was encouraged. The Empire needed peace on its borders, and Banat was a frontier province that was exposed to powerful external pressures (Neumann 2012).

Taking into consideration the arguments identified in documentary sources, it is clear that the region we are studying displays intercultural co-construction that is deeply rooted in history. It was on the basis of this background that, after 1990, both deconstruction and the present-day intercultural social co-construction took place and are taking place. Politically speaking, the motive force for this was the process of European integration. In the course of this process, the border underwent a process of functional change. Whereas during the communist period the national frontier had played the role of a barrier, from 1990 onwards it increasingly served as a zone of meeting and exchange between Banat people of different ethnicities living in the three neighbouring countries of Romania, Serbia and Hungary. The founding in 1997 of the DKMT Euroregion, followed in 2007 by Romania’s entry into the EU, stimulated these processes and provided institutional and functional leverage to promote cultural identities and increase the resilience of local ethnic minorities (Săgeată 2014).

The concept of resilience is an important concern of social and geographical studies. Synthetically, it includes a number of concepts: individual and group capacity to respond to local needs and issues, community networks, people-place connections, community infrastructure, diverse and innovative economy, engaged governance in regional decision making (Maclean et al. 2014). Sustainability is inextricably linked to the concepts of development and resilience. It refers to the ability of today’s communities to grow without jeopardizing future generations’ security and access to resources. Social sustainability and social resilience are interlinked. The first relies on safety and equity as key concepts (Eizenberg and Jabareen 2017). This article highlights, on the one hand, the resilience of the model of intercultural coexistence in the studied cross-border area and, on the other hand, the implications and sustainability of this phenomenon in the process of territorial deconstruction in the wider context of Romania’s European integration.

After 1990, a series of scientific papers on the studied region were published on the subject of this study. Territoriality and the production of space were treated especially after 2000 (Popa 2006; Ancuța 2008; Săgeată 2014; Anderson 2020). In this context, an important role was played by the historical heritage from the 18th to 19th centuries, when this territory was colonized by the Habsburgs and the ethnic mosaic was created (Kahl and Jordan 2004; Anderson 2020). Today, European integration and the constitution of the DKMT Euroregion have an important role in the deconstruction of territoriality and in the production of space (Popa 2006; Săgeată 2014). Cross-border relations and cross-border space have been more in the attention of geographers and geopoliticians (Hlihor 2011). The regional identity in Banat has been the subject of numerous sociological studies (Gavreliuc 2003; Buzărnescu et al. 2004; Pascaru 2005), anthropological (Adam 2008; Babeți 2008), historical (Neumann 2012; Constantin and Lungu-Badea 2014), geographical (Voiculescu 2005; Crețan et al. 2008). Studies on ethnic identity (Crețan et al. 2008; Gidó 2012, 2013), ethnic minorities (Crețan 1999) and interethnic relations (Andreescu 2004; Buzărnescu et al. 2004; Kahl and Jordan 2004; Crețan et al. 2008; Micle 2013; Gidó 2012, 2013; Berecz 2021) reveals a winding path to the development of a resilient interethnic cultural complex, specific to this region (Adam 2008; Neumann 2012; Micle 2013).

In this context, our contribution to knowledge in the field results from the corroboration of previous research, with the results of socio-geographical research undertaken by us, in an integrated perspective. Within it, the emphasis is on the cross-border dimensions of the relations of the Hungarian, Serbian and Ukrainian ethnic minorities in Timiș County and on the role of those relations in the recent processes of transformation, through co-construction and socio-territorial deconstruction.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Methods

Our approach to this subject was via a methodology based on both direct and indirect research (Jodelet 2007; Rotariu 2016).

The direct research of the target communities was achieved through questionnaire and interviews conducted in communities belonging to the three most important (in terms of their weighting within the population of the county) minority ethnic groups, all originating in countries that border on Romania.

The selection criteria of the localities for the sample were the size of the ethnic minority population (at least 200 individuals), the percentage of the respective minorities in the local population (at least 20% of the locality population), the level of cultural-identity activity (organised cultural events, own folk ensembles, writings in the minority language, use of the mother tongue), and territorial representativeness in Timiș County. According to the most recent census figures (those of 2011) there are 42 localities in Timiș County which meet these selection criteria, the minorities in question being Hungarian (16), Ukrainian (10), Serbian (7), Roma (7), and Bulgarian (2) (Database of the Regional Bureau of Statistics Timișoara 2021).

In the sampling process we used analysis of documents (statistics of the latest censuses, cultural agenda of the county and localities, information from the regional press, specialized bibliography), analysis of maps, and preliminary observations in the field.

The identification of the respondents to the questionnaire in each locality was made on the basis of the information obtained through direct interrogation of the persons, as well as the information obtained from the local authorities, the school and the representatives of the churches. The age and sex structure of the sample reflects the age and sex structure of the local population at the last census conducted in 2011. Three hundred questionnaires and sixteen interviews were applied in sixteen locations (Figure 1) scattered in all parts of the county where there are concentrations of Hungarian, Serbian, and Bulgarian population—also relevant due to the traditional links that these minorities maintain with Serbia and Hungary, both neighbours of Timiș County. For our social perception study, the results of the quantitative analysis of questionnaire responses were combined with the qualitative-attitudinal information that emerged from analysis of the interviews.

Each questionnaire contained 43 questions (see the questionnaire in the annexes). The answers to these were processed in the Excel 2016 program, and the most significant results served to clarify the research issue and to build the topics addressed in this article. The questionnaire directly targeted the preservation of ethnic identity (questions 9, 10 and 11), the relationship with communities of the same ethnicity (questions 18–21), the relationship with the country of origin of the ethnic group (questions 12–16, 21), the relationship with the host country and the Romanian population (questions 10, 17, 22–25), the relationship with other ethnic groups (questions 23–25), and attachment to different territorial constructs and regional identity (questions 10, 13–17). We measured the character and level of attachment of respondents directly by giving a score (question 17), and indirectly by revealing the role of local, regional, national and supranational authorities (question 10), the perception of phenomena occurring at different territorial levels, such as migration, preservation of ethnic identity, education, carrying out socio-economic activities, and communication (questions 8, 11–22).

The interviews were applied to individuals with a role in preserving cultural identity and the practice of cross-border relations in these communities (coordinators of cross-border projects, deputy mayors, members of parliament representing minorities, representatives of NGOs, teachers, priests, and the member of the Timiș county Schools Inspectorate responsible for teaching through the medium of the minority languages). The interviews, comprising 9 open-ended key questions, were classically exploited by including the answers in a common matrix (see the interview guide in the annexes).

We also used other field research methods, including observation and immersion, which was possible because we tended to participate in the cultural activities of different ethnic communities in the region, but in this article we preferred not to explicitly exploit these dimensions of our research.

The main objective of interviews was to identify the respondent’s attitude, resulting from the perception and representation of the relationship with the country of origin of the ethnic group, the relationship with the host country, the impact of cross-border relations and European integration for the preservation of ethnic identity, the relations between the host country and the country of origin of the ethnic group. From the free answers we selected authentic data and facts, with symbolic significance for our research topic.

The data and information we obtained from questionnaires, interviews and field research were compared and correlated with those from similar studies published in the literature on ethnic minorities and regional identity related to the studied region and other similar regions (Gavreliuc 2003; Crețan et al. 2008; Cebotari 2014). This research strategy, combining the analysis of quantitative data with qualitative methodology, is supported in the methodological literature and has been applied with good results in studies conducted in the larger area we study, on topics related to geopolitics research, social imaginary, identity, and multiculturalism (Iluț 1997; Rotaru and Iluț 2006).

3.2. Materials

The materials used in conducting this study can be grouped into two broad categories: theoretical literature and working materials (thematic studies focused on the territory studied, statistical data, results of field research, especially answers to questionnaires and interviews).

The theoretical literature provided the general epistemological framework, the methodological principles and the concepts that underlie the phenomena observed in the territory. We considered the clarification of the following concepts: territory, territoriality and semiotics of territory; regionalism and regional identity; ethnicity and ethnic identity; otherness; interculturality and intercultural dialogue; deconstruction and territorial co-construction. We retained and developed in state-of-the-art those that we considered would allow us to scientifically validate the empirical research on the current interactions of ethnic minorities studied by us in Timiș County.

From the working materials, in this paper we used mainly the results appropriate to the topic, from the questionnaire and the interview (

Table 1. Number of questionnaires and interviews applied in Timiș County.

Locality (Village/Town/City)	Administrative Unit	Number of Questionnaires	Number of Interviews
Bodo	Balinț	20	-
Breștea	Denta	8	-
Buziaș	Buziaș	-	1
Cenei	Cenei	30	-
Diniaș	Peciu Nou	30	-
Dudeștii Vechi	Dudeștii Vechi	50	2
Dumbrăvița	Dumbrăvița	20	-
Otelec	Otelec	20	-
Sânnicolau Mare	Sânnicolau Mare	3	5
Sânpetru Mare	Sânpetru Mare	20	-
Timișoara	Timișoara	30	7
Țipari	Coșteiu	20	-
Tormac	Tormac	30	-
Valcani	Valcani	-	1
Variaș	Variaș	19	-
Total		300	16

). The 300 valid questionnaires recovered from respondents from the Hungarian, Serbian and Bulgarian minority ethnic communities in Timiș County, scattered on a large area (Figure 1), each contained 43 questions. The answers to these were processed in the Excel 2016 program, and the most significant results served to clarify the research issue and to build the topics addressed in this article. The interviews, comprising 11 open-ended key questions, were classically exploited by including the answers in a common matrix. This allowed us to view and compare the opinions of the 16 specialists and managers interviewed. Thus, we obtained a valuable volume of primary information, which we selectively exploited in the article, on the topics that needed to be consolidated through a qualitative approach.

The statistical data were corroborated with data obtained from older research, mostly conducted by geographers, anthropologists, historians and sociologists from the West University of Timișoara and published in volume or in national and international publications.

4. Results

The analysis of official statistical data highlighted contrasting trends in the last 3 decades. During the deep crisis of the 1990s, the population of Timiș County decreased from 700,033 inhabitants in 1992 to 677,926 inhabitants in 2002, due to the majority of ethnic groups, including Romanians, but especially by completing the massive emigration of ethnic Germans. As a result, the share of minorities in the total population of the county decreased from 19.86% to 16.54%. In the 2000s, the population tended to stabilize, so that at the last census (2011), in Timiș County there were 683,540 inhabitants, of which only 634,150 declared their ethnicity; of these, 13.14% belonged to ethnic minorities, marking a decrease following Romania’s integration into the EU, which facilitated emigration. Subsequently, the population of the county had a slight growth trend, the regional authorities estimating a resident population of 705,500 inhabitants, on 1 January 2021. In the studied region, 97.3% of localities were inhabited not only by Romanians but also by at least three people of another ethnicity (Database of the Regional Bureau of Statistics Timișoara 2021).

However, although the inhabitants belonging to different ethnic minorities are spread throughout the territory of Timiș County, their dispersion and territorial concentration are not uniform. A small part of the localities inhabited by them fall into the category of ethnic minority communities (with representative concentrations), which belong mainly to the minorities of Hungarians, Serbs and Bulgarians (

Table 2. Numerical structure of ethnic minorities in the localities of Timiș County in 2011.

Ethnic Minority	No. of Inhabitants 2011	% of Total Population	Localities with a Share of Over 20% of at Least One Ethnic Minority
			Number of Localities	Percentage in Total Localities with Minorities	Percentage of the Total Minority Population
Hungarians	35,295	5.16	16	5.63	12.09
Serbians	10,102	1.48	7	7.65	32.63
Bulgarians	4478	0.66	2	6.25	62.35
Other	33,579	4.91	17	6.27	28.40
Total ethnic minority population	83,314	12.19	42	13.29	100

(Source: Population and Housing Census of Romania 2011).

). Analysis of the documentary evidence and of the empirical information we gathered demonstrates that activities designed to preserve the identity of ethnic minorities take place preponderantly in towns and localities where minorities make up at least 20% of the population or where they number not fewer than 200. In places where having notices displayed in the language of the ethnic minority, and its use alongside Romanian in local administration, are current practices, it is clear that there is ethnic-identity consciousness and a concern for its continuance, so we investigated them in particular (Figure 1).

Regarding regional identity, the field study reveals a strong attachment of the inhabitants to the place of residence and to the Banat region. The meanings and implications of this result are multiple. For the majority of inhabitants, the mental boundaries of Banat largely correspond to its configuration at the point at which it was incorporated into the lands of the Habsburg Empire in 1718 (when it was bounded by the Carpathians, the Danube, the River Tisa and the River Mureș), even though the region has been subdivided and administratively reorganised a number of times since 1918 (Ancuța 2008). Other studies attest to the fact that historic Banat has remained in the collective mentality as a positive model, opposed, in some contexts, to the present-day territorial organisation, and that this is felt by indigenous Banat Romanians as well (Babeți 2008).

From the answers given by the interviewees and the opinions expressed by the respondents to the questionnaires it turns out that, in their imagination, Banat remained “whole”, considering that the state border drawn after the First World War separates two countries or two states, but it cannot break the intimate connection identity among the inhabitants. The questionnaires show that 42.83% of Hungarian and Bulgarian respondents maintain direct and stable connections with people who speak the same mother tongue in Serbian Banat. A representative of the Bulgarian community said that “I do not feel like a foreigner when I cross the border in Serbia, in the old Banat. The official language of the country differs, but the old architecture of the villages (as it was built in the Austro-Hungarian period) and the custom of using the mother tongue, mutual tolerance between ethnic groups, have remained as they were and are today in The Romanian Banat”. Another respondent, a Hungarian, remarked that: “in the villages across the border we still have relatives and, in the cemeteries, there are buried relatives of our ancestors. Banat was divided as a territory, but we have our history and our tradition”. A Serbian respondent remarked that “Banat means the whole territory, as it was, between the Tisza, the Mureș and the Danube. I am a Serb from Banat, and across the border, I go to Banat. There, I meet Serbs, Hungarians, Romanians—also from Banat. The official name Banat has been retained in Serbia”.

With the help of the questionnaire, we aimed to evaluate, by awarding points, the degree of attachment that the respondents show in relation to a series of different territorial constructs (Banat, Timiș County, EU Romania, etc.). Results gave regional/local belonging the highest scores, closely followed by country of origin and host country (Figure 2). As completing the questionnaire allowed them to express themselves freely on this issue, anonymously and without the constraints of a hierarchy, a significant proportion of respondents gave the same or a similar number of points to place of residence, region, host country and country of origin. We may interpret these responses, with their extremely similar scores, as a proof of the solid integration, at the mental level, of the territorial constructs under consideration.

Regarding interculturality and intercultural co-construction, field studies conducted by psychosociologist Alin Gavreliuc (2003) two decades ago show that, for example, a Romanian from Banat feels closer to a Serb or a German from Banat than to a Romanian from another region of Romania. The author also specifies that the ethnic minorities he questioned expressed their firm solidarity with the Romanians in Banat. This regional otherness has been explained, on the one hand, by the interethnic solidarity built in at least two centuries of coexistence and, on the other hand, by the common regional identity, regardless of the assumed ethnic identity. One respondent, a school inspector for Hungarian medium instruction, underlined that “activities carried out in common demonstrate that we face similar problems, and this has the effect of bringing people closer together, regardless of their nationality”.

The Church has always been an important social factor that has a constant impact on cultural life (Cobianu-Băcanu 2007). Where the religious community is composed of representatives of more than one ethnic group, as is the case, for example, in the Roman Catholic parish of Sânnicolau Mare (Romania), the priest takes an active involvement in strengthening a climate of tolerance and interethnic solidarity. More than that, he mentions the help he received from the Romanians of Makó (Hungary), on the occasion of some lay religious and cultural activities that took place in collaboration with the Roman Catholic community there. This was a vivid example of intercultural solidarity, given that not all the participants from Sânnicolau Mare knew Hungarian well, any more than all the Romanians from Makó knew Romanian. The priest added the detail that when social and cultural events take place, representatives of other denominations and ethnic groups are invariably invited, and that this practice is widespread in the region across all confessional communities.

Our field research in the years 2020–2021 indicates the same ethnic tolerance shown in respondents from all three ethnic groups studied, in that over 65% of respondents would have no objection to having a neighbour of another ethnicity or that he or a close relative marry someone of another ethnicity. However, respondents declared their attachment to Romania in a proportion of over 88%, which is why we are inclined to believe that their positive attitude towards Banat residents of other ethnicities has a proactive significance and is not mainly directed against Romanian residents from other regions of the country (Gavreliuc 2003).

The questionnaire survey conducted by us in the mentioned ethnic minority communities also revealed great openness on the part of respondents towards members of other ethnic groups. When asked whether they would accept neighbours of a different ethnicity, a majority of 75.33% replied in the affirmative. The level of acceptance of people of a different ethnicity into one’s extended family is high. Over 67% of the respondents declared that they have members of another ethnicity in their extended family (Figure 3). Many of the respondents proved to have grade I (31%) and II (36%) relations of other ethnicities, most frequently Romanians.

Observations made in the communities studied also demonstrate the plurilingualism of respondents. The direct observations made in the studied communities attest to a large number of respondents who know languages other than their mother tongue and the official language, Romanian. This confirms the results of other previous studies, which indicate the habit of the people of Banat to learn the mother tongue of childhood friends or people from extended family (Neumann 2012; Micle 2013; Para and Moise 2014). This opens the way for cultural values to migrate inside those multi-ethnic communities (Cobianu-Băcanu 2007).

A further factor in intercultural co-construction is the existence of a shared historical and cultural patrimony. Both historical personalities of different ethnic origins and monumental buildings have symbolic value for all Banat residents. Efforts to preserve this heritage are undertaken in common, with the majority Romanian population also participating, even though some of them arrived relatively recently (in the past 20–30 years) from other regions of the country. To take only two examples, Nakó Castle in Sânnicolau Mare, built by Count Kálmán Nakó, a descendant of the Nacu family, Aromanians who migrated here from the Balkans and became Hungarian in the 18th century, and the Hungarian composer Béla Bartók, born in the same town, are both symbols that have been adopted by the entire local population.

We also find people of different ethnic origins participating in the folk music and dance ensembles of the region. The Doina Ensemble (Romanian) and the Sveti Sava [St Sava] (Serbian) Ensemble both have Romanian, Serbian, Bulgarian and Hungarian dancers and singers/musicians as members performing together. The situation is similar when it comes to local festivals: the Jaku Ronkov interethnic Festival in Dudeștii Vechi (a Bulgarian community), the Lada cu Zestre [Dowry Chest) Festival, and the Festival of Ethnic Groups; the last two organised by Timiș County Council. Representatives of all the ethnic minorities in Romania, Serbia and Hungary are invited to these events.

The practice of cross-border relations between the minority communities we have studied in Timiș County and their co-nationals in Serbia and Hungary, involves a number of social, cultural and economic aspects.

The questionnaire method employed in our field research allowed us to assess the frequency, strength and nature of cross-border contacts between people living in the communities studied and their co-nationals in neighbouring countries Serbia and Hungary. The most important motive for maintaining these contacts tended to be interpersonal relations; affinities of a cultural and especially language-based nature were invoked less frequently (Figure 4).

Field research demonstrated that ethnic Hungarians in Timiș County have a high level of interest in cultural relations with their country of origin. 55% of ethnic Hungarian respondents to the questionnaire mentioned cultural activities and the preservation of the language and of the historical tradition as motives for maintaining a relationship with their co-nationals in their country of origin (Figure 4). Turning to the relationship between Hungarians in the area of study and Hungarians in Serbia, this cultural motivation was mentioned by 76% of respondents.

A different picture emerges for relations between Romania and Serbia regarding the Serbian minority in Timiș County. The support given by Serbia to Serb communities in Romania has been less solid, principally for economic reasons and because of the policy of Belgrade. During the socialist period, the cultural support Yugoslavia gave to Serb minorities in other countries was limited. After the Yugoslav Federation broke up, the internal problems of Serbia imposed even greater limitations on the possibility of such support being provided (Rusinov 2002; Glenny 2012). For the representatives of the Serb communities in Timiș County, the cultural motivation for maintaining contact with their co-nationals in their country of origin was mentioned by 59%, similar with to the level among Hungarians. As for the relationship with Serbs in Hungary, cultural motivation was invoked by 74% of respondents.

A percentage of 58.77% of Bulgarian respondents invoked a common language and the preservation of ethnic identity when asked about relations with their co-nationals in their country of origin; for relations with their co-nationals in neighbouring Serbia, the figure was 78%. It is worth mentioning that the Bulgarians in the area of study and those who live in Serbia both speak a dialect form of Bulgarian that differs from the literary language.

A surprisingly high percentage of questionnaire respondents stated that they had relatives in their country of origin—over 44% (Figure 4). Bearing in mind that the questionnaire part of our research took place in old rural communities in which families are interrelated to a significant degree, it is possible that some families may maintain links with relatives over the border in which the relationship was formed many generations back. We should also recall that before the 1918 partition, the communities in Banat maintained active relations, especially as some localities came into existence as the result of an influx of inhabitants from localities that are now in Hungary or Serbia, close to the current border. In the rural world, extended family links are extremely resilient (Bădescu 2011).

The percentages of different areas of interest as the basis for relations with subjects’ country of origin (Figure 4) provide a picture of a kind of collective mentality in which interest in interpersonal relations and in relations with one’s immediate social milieu outweighs interest in the preservation of culture. Respondents stated that they were more concerned with interpersonal cohesion than with voluntary initiatives aimed at preserving culture. Family, followed by one’s circle of friends and the local community, were the most significant factors, followed again at an appreciable distance by regional and transregional considerations.

Regarding the development of relations between ethnic minority communities and the social perception of territory, the points which nuance this issue to the Hungarian minority were highlighted as follows:

-

The impact of bilateral collaboration between Romania and Hungary on the preservation of identity in Hungarian ethnic minority communities.

-

The influence of the process of EU integration on relations between Romanians and the Hungarian minorities, and between the latter and their adoptive country.

With reference to the impact of bilateral relations between Romania and Hungary, in all cases respondents invoked the direct effect of bilateral relations between the two neighbouring countries.

Interviewees emphasised the shared regional identity of Banat people on both sides of the border. The majority of their mentions of Hungarians in Serbia and Hungary made reference to localities in historic Banat.

They also mentioned the fact that the status of Hungarians in Banat is different from that of Hungarians in Transylvania: “In Transylvania the Hungarians live in compact communities, while in Banat we are like in the Diaspora. It is natural that Hungary should help them more than us. We have relationships with both the Hungarians and the Romanians in Makó” (Ando Ioan Attila, priest, Sânnicolau Mare). This distinction between the Hungarians of Banat and their co-nationals in Transylvania is evident from other interviews besides this one.

Romanian-Hungarian bilateral relations have facilitated collaboration in a variety of areas and cross-border visits by both sides, the participants in which belong to a wide range of ages, from school pupils to those of working age to retired people. In seven of the eight interviews with representatives of the Hungarian community there were mentions of the twinning of towns and communes on both sides of the border and of the twinning of schools and cultural organisations.

Between 2007 and 2020, projects were implemented that aimed at objectives such as sustainable development, risk management, conservation of natural and cultural heritage, human resource development, tourism development, cross-border movement, education and research. In the studied region, by far, the most active was the relationship with Hungary. (data source: http://www.huro-cbc.eu/, https://interreg-rohu.eu/ accessed on 3 December 2021). At a short distance were the projects implemented by Romania in collaboration with Serbia (data source: https://www.romania-serbia.net/ accessed in 3 December 2021). Romanian-Ukrainian and Romanian-Bulgarian bilateral projects have not been implemented, as Timiș County is outside the target area of these programs, but the Bulgarian and Ukrainian communities are included in other Romanian governmental and European projects, of course, with a much lower impact. The field study revealed the openness of all interviewees to be actively involved in the implementation of such projects in the future.

The moral and material support that institutions and communities in Hungary supply to their opposite numbers in Romania should not go unmentioned. The founder and coordinator of the “Kék Ibolya”, a Hungarian folk dance ensemble based in Sânnicolau Mare emphasised that “we have been helped more by the Hungarians of Hungary than by those in Romania”.

The main political party of ethnic Hungarians in Romania is DAHR (Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania). In the same context of the aid received by the Hungarian minority ethnic communities in Romania from the country of origin of the ethnic group, Hungary, the Sânnicolau Mare DAHR president highlighted the constructive role played by their partners in Hungary, which joined the EU earlier than Romania, in helping them access EU funding and implement projects. Hungary has made a financial contribution, through state programmes, towards the renovation of buildings in which Hungarian medium teaching takes place, including the Bartók kindergarten and the Assembly Hall of the Gerhardinum Roman Catholic High School, both in Timişoara. The Szeged folk dance ensemble supports Hungarian folk dance groups in Timiş County (Bokréta, Eszterlánc, Búzavirág, Csűrdöngölő, etc.). Schools and kindergartens which teach in Hungarian have received educational materials and toys from various foundations in Hungary. “A large number of Romanian-Hungarian combined projects have been implemented, and these have made a great contribution, directly or indirectly, to the preservation of ethnic identity (K.F., school inspector, Timișoara).

In conclusion, successful bilateral projects have strengthened relations between the countries, while dialogue and intercultural co-construction have improved the social perception of Hungarians and Hungary among their Romanian partners.

Hungary and Romania’s common membership of the EU plays an extremely important role in the preservation of the ethnic identity of Hungarians in Timiș County.

All respondents to interview referred to the advantages of this common EU membership in ensuring free movement of persons and the opportunity to access EU funding for shared projects. Responses to this question both affirm and nuance this common belonging to the Banat space. More than that, the Sânnicolau Mare DAHR president was at pains to specify that “the EU supports cross-border collaboration in a concrete way, which means that belonging to the EU is of mutual benefit both for the Hungarian community and for the Romanian community”.

Again, respondents underlined the positive collaborative relations that the Roman Catholic parish of Sânnicolau Mare, in which ethnic Hungarians are in the majority, is developing with the Romanians of Makó and the surrounding rural area. The fact that the Hungarians in Romania know Romanian and the Romanians in Hungary know Hungarian has smoothed the way to cross-border and intercultural communication between these Banat residents who live in different countries. In response to this question, the same interviewee specified that “it is difficult to say whether the good relations between Romania and Hungary are due to the EU. Before 1990, relations between Hungary and Romania were controlled by the USSR. In that period Hungary did not give support to the Hungarian community in Romania”—leaving one to understand that the best way the two countries can develop a closer relationship is via bilateral communication. The other respondents underlined that the policy of EU integration had facilitated the moves Hungary had made to come to the aid of Hungarian communities in Romania.

Romanian-Serbian cross-border relations were interpreted quite differently by respondents to interviews. One of these, with twenty years’ involvement in promoting the folklore and traditions of the Serbian community in the west of Timiș County, stated that “political relations very much depend on the international political context and have nothing to do with people who live in the zone of overlap”. The majority of the Serbian respondents recalled, with disappointment, the support the Romanian government had given NATO in 1999 when the North Atlantic allies were bombing Serbia. Feelings of empathy were expressed towards Serbs in the mother country, but without this generating resentment towards Romanians. Something else that came out in the interviews was regret that Serbia had not been able to give any solid support to their co-nationals in the Romanian Banat. At the same time, they referred to the empathy they experience from Romanians, especially from those in the region which Serbians and Romanians inhabit together. The position of a 34-year-old respondent (much younger than the previously mentioned Serbian respondents), coordinator of a Serbian folk ensemble from Sânnicolau Mare is more proactive. He sees Romania’s cross-border collaboration with Serbia as positive and considers that “Through these cultural projects the community (not only the Serbs in the community) is enriched culturally, plus it is an opportunity for the community to gather in a spirit of solidarity. These cross-border projects also bring together several ethnic communities and are good for cultivating respect for diversity, socialization and interethnic understanding. This culture of diversity and inter-ethnic communication is specific to Banat, on both sides of the border” (the respondent refers to Banat within its historical limits).

With reference to efforts to preserve the identity of Serbians in the area of study, two former Serb minority members of the Romanian Parliament deplored the massive infusion of cultural elements from regions of Serbia, since these are alien to the local Banat Serb ethos. It is noteworthy that all respondents identified Timiș County as their “homeland of origin” and recalled that there had been a continuous Serb presence there since the medieval period. There consequently exists, in the Serbian communities of the area studied, a specific local culture, and this is under threat precisely from the help and influence that have come from Serbia.

The impact of cross-border relations differs very much from case to case. All the Serbian respondents referred to the economic benefits of the informal trade across the border that functioned until 1992, but also stated that their host country, Romania, is currently giving them more substantial support towards preserving their local ethno-cultural identity.

As for the impact of the process of EU integration on Romanian-Serbian relations, via projects that have a direct effect on their communities, they mentioned that “the benefits of these EU projects for our community are still awaited” (by the members of the communities). In the respondents’ opinion, intercommunity cross-border projects without EU support had a greater impact in the cultural sphere. Exchanges, reciprocal visits and activities undertaken at the local level through inter-institutional and intercommunity collaboration consolidated the empathetic relationship and reinforced a reciprocally positive attitude on the part of both Romanians and Serbs.

In the Bulgarian Catholic communities in Timiș County, cross-border relations with Bulgaria are more apparent in their institutionalised forms. The relatively greater distance to the country of origin from which they emigrated at the end of the seventeenth century, along with the fact that Timiș County does not share a border with Bulgaria, have made interpersonal cross-border relations difficult. Consequently, the initiative for links with their country of origin and for links with other ethnic Bulgarian communities, this time in Serbia, has chiefly been of an officially organised nature. “Collaboration between Romania and Bulgaria definitely has a positive effect both on the Bulgarian community in Romania and on the community of Romanians in Bulgaria” (C.N., representative of the Union of Bulgarians in Banat Romania). The moving force behind the establishing of links has in most cases been cultural or social.

As in the case of the other minorities studied, the Banat Bulgarian respondents invoked the support which they enjoy from their host country in preserving their culture and maintaining links with their country of origin. Through their official representatives and through the practice of informal contacts, the Bulgarian minority in Banat has acted as a bridge on which the two countries, Bulgaria and Romania, have met and become closer.

5. Discussion

The results of our research continue and confirm, for the most part, the observations of other researchers on the multicultural and intercultural society of Banat, in which Timiș County forms the central part. These results also resonate with theoretical studies developed in recent decades on plural societies in general and with those applied to other territories similar to Timiș County, located in a border position, as part of an old historical region, today divided between neighboring countries.

Given the specific issues, objectives and results of our research, we chose to discuss them in a structured way, on the main topics that were the subject of reflection in this article, namely, territoriality and regional identity, interculturality and intercultural co-construction, cultural resilience of ethnic minorities, cross-border relations and territorial deconstruction. We discuss these specific results in the context of the scientific literature, in order to reveal the similarities and the particularities of the ethnic minority communities from Timiș County.

5.1. Territoriality and Regional Identity

A key concept in political geography, territory has for long been treated as an essential element in the formation and survival of a socio-cultural community. Territoriality, by contrast, is a cultural phenomenon which, over time, undergoes changes both of structure and of functionality (Soja 1971).

The results obtained by processing questionnaires and interviews strengthen and nuance the issues reported in studies published two or three decades ago. They attest the resilience of a strong regional identity, which unites all inhabitants, regardless of ethnic and religious affiliation.

Drawing on anthropological research carried out in the field, the psychosociologist Alin Gavreliuc (2003) observed that, for Banat inhabitants, regional alterity manifests more powerfully than ethnic alterity, irrespective of the ethnic group to which the respondent belongs. The coexistence of several ethnic groups over the centuries has cemented the relationship between them. In fact, the psychosociologist Alin Gavreliuc (2003) observed that, for Banat inhabitants, regional alterity manifests more powerfully than ethnic alterity, irrespective of the ethnic group to which the respondent belongs (Gavreliuc 2003).

The resilience and maturity of intercultural social relations, together with the assumed regional identity, paved the way for social sustainability (Biart 2002). Interethnic relations have evolved in the direction of active intercultural dialogue and intercultural co-construction (Neumann 2012). The intensification of cross-border traffic, and then the process of European integration, reactivated the social image of the solidarity of this region with Western Europe and the values that were the basis of its historical construction. Regarding the level of attachment declared by the respondents for different territorial constructs (see Figure 2), we can interpret these answers with their extremely similar scores as a proof of the solid integration, at the mental level, of the territorial constructs considered.

Cultural patrimony plays a key role in the construction of regional identity. Shared historical experience weaves a network of durable connections between different social classes and ethnic groups (Ballinger 2007).

In the autobiographical discourse of those we interviewed, the fact of intercultural solidarity could be seen to be welded together with Banat regional identity. This is also attested by a study published in 2008 which demonstrated the model of regional identity construction based on intercultural co-construction: „The Banat model is a theme that is extremely frequently aired both in media discourse and in daily interactions. It is weighted with a number of stereotypical features and invoked in a multitude of social situations” (Adam 2008, p. 172).

We may conclude by affirming that research into the perception of territory confirms the strong manifestation of regional identity in the population of the area studied, revealed in other works, to which is added an awareness of local and regional into larger territorial units.

5.2. Interculturality and Intercultural Co-Construction

Research into interculturality in Banat has made clear the high level of mutual tolerance and social solidarity displayed in the ethnic mosaic of Banat (Babeți 2008; Crețan et al. 2008; Neumann 2012; Constantin and Lungu-Badea 2014). More than that, regional identity has welded together the elements that compose it.

All the ethnicities that together inhabit Banat have adopted elements of material culture, cookery, and many words from the German communities (Neumann 2012; Micle 2013; Para and Moise 2014). Cultural exchanges can be identified in the vernacular vocabulary of all the cohabiting ethnic groups in Banat. Most imports come from German, but specialized studies also reveal regionalisms taken from Hungarian, Serbian or Romanian (Adam 2008; Neumann 2012; Constantin and Lungu-Badea 2014).

The analysis of the interviews shows the respondent’s openness to collaborate with the majority Romanian population and with the other ethnic groups in the area. Projects with a social and cultural theme have brought representatives of the various minorities face to face, and have provided the opportunity for positive interethnic collaboration.

The Church has always been an important social factor with a constant impact on cultural life (Cobianu-Băcanu 2007). Where the religious community is composed of representatives of more than one ethnic group, as is the case, for example, in the Roman Catholic parish of Sânnicolau Mare, the priest takes an active involvement in strengthening a climate of tolerance and interethnic solidarity. More than that, he mentions the help he received from the Romanians of Makó, in Hungary, on the occasion of some lay religious and cultural activities that took place in collaboration with the Roman Catholic community there. This was a vivid example of intercultural solidarity, given that not all the participants from Sânnicolau Mare knew Hungarian well, any more than all the Romanians from Makó knew Romanian. The priest added the detail that when social and cultural events take place, representatives of other denominations and ethnic groups are invariably invited, and that this practice is widespread in the region across all confessional communities.

The fact that, in general, in the localities with over 3000 inhabitants from Timiș County (Cenad, Șandra, Deta, Jimbolia, Lugoj, etc.), in the civic centers there are nearby Catholic, Romanian Orthodox, Serbian Orthodox, and Protestant churches, among others, proves the peaceful coexistence between the members of the different religious cults. The sociologist Constantin Cuciuc points out that: “Although with different doctrines and practices, they consider themselves “sisters”, with a similar mission to people and to God. Gradually, they get to collaborate, discovering common, interfaith interests and concerns, maintaining their own organizational structures, but initiating common activities, missions and organizational structures” (Cuciuc 1999, p. 12). The common goals of the various religious denominations, related to the preservation of the common Christian identity, the perpetuation of axiology and Christian morality, are also underlined by the exegetes of the theological field (Bârlea 2013). In the context of the statements of the Catholic priest from Sânnicolau Mare, evoked in the results, we notice that it is not about promoting ecumenism, but about recognizing common goals with the representatives of other religious denominations.

Intercultural communication and intercultural dialogue underlie intercultural co-construction. Intercultural dialogue involves an inverse connection between individuals and between groups in contact. In this context, the leaders of the groups have a key role (Râmbu 2019; Lähdesmäki et al. 2020). Co-construction manifests itself as a consequence of dialogue, exchanges and the process of negotiation between groups, or between the leader and his group (Jacoby and Ochs 1995). In the current context of intercultural relations in the studied minority ethnic communities, co-construction follows directly the dialogue between organizations and their leaders. For example, the leaders of unions and associations of ethnic minorities formed in the first year after the fall of the communist regime, with national, regional and local representation, have built bridges between minorities in Romania and their country of origin (Gidó 2012, 2013). In addition to preserving the ethno-linguistic identity, these associations and their representatives have been proactive in consolidating democracy, consolidating bilateral realities between the country of origin of the ethnic group and their host country. In this context, we mention that the leaders of the NGOs cooperate, both with the Romanian Parliament through the deputy representing the minority and with the embassies of the related countries.

In conclusion, we may invoke interculturality, along with historical tradition and geographical closeness, as the source of the historical construction of the Banat symbolic space. This facilitates inter-community communication, including in its cross-border variant, and it also, along with economic and political factors, nurtures the culture of difference (Babeți 2008), which becomes evident in the context of territorial deconstruction.

5.3. Cross-Border Relations: A Process of Territorial Deconstruction

Applied studies and literature reveal multiple aspects of intercultural coexistence in ethnic Hungarian, Serbian and Bulgarian communities in the cross-border area of Timiș County.

The socio-cultural phenomena that are relevant in this context are interculturality, intercultural dialogue, intercultural co-construction, and cross-border circulation.

In the view of the philosopher Étienne Balibar (2009), in Central and Eastern Europe the “cross-over model” of contact between countries operates. Both institutions and individuals interact on both sides of the border in virtue of multimodal connections made up of many overlapping layers. Recent territorial constructs, influenced by the process of European and Euro-Atlantic integration, are overlaid upon areas of inter-civilisational interpenetration in which the spatial distribution of dialogue partners is in the form of a mosaic. “This creates a potential for ethnic and religious conflicts, but also for hybridity and cultural invention” (Balibar 2009, p. 201).

Interpersonal relations, evoked by the respondents to the questionnaires and interviews in the studied minority ethnic communities, established via multiple channels of communication, overlap with inter-state and inter-institutional realities. Thus, the international border along the western side of Timiș County is affected by bilateral accords between Romania and Serbia and Romania and Hungary, internal EU policy (for relations with Hungary), and the EU Neighbourhood Policy (regarding relations with Serbia).

The numerous cross-border interactions that take place have their effects on the behaviour of the individuals and groups involved. Among phenomena identified by research carried out in the past two decades, confirmed by our current research, we may mention perception, knowledge, and identity (van Houtum 1999, 2000). As an effect, expressions of difference have been observed in the structure of the pre-existing socio-cultural space, in addition to a new social, political and economic construction in cross-border areas (Decoville and Durand 2019). In terms of international relations, these make a contribution to improving bilateral relations and to the “healing of historic wounds” (Wassenberg et al. 2015, p. 11), a role played by the establishment of the DKMT Euroregion in 1997, fostering closer cross-border contacts. For example, since 1990, Hungary, with the cooperation of the partner countries, has been acting to ensure the preservation of the cultural heritage and of Hungarian as a mother tongue.

Our field study also confirmed the resilience of intercultural social relations invoked by previous literature (Adam 2008). Belonging to the same territory of the historic province of Banat—built throughout history—has contributed positively to the development of cross-border relations between people and communities. The implementation of bilateral projects between the Romanian authorities and the Serbian and Hungarian authorities, in the context of European integration, has benefited all inhabitants and the region as a whole, strengthening the mutually beneficial and socially, economically and politically sustainable relationship of ethnic minorities with the majority population and the host country. It has also contributed in a sustainable way to strengthening the relations between Romania and the countries of origin of these ethnic minority communities on the one hand and, on the other hand, between Romania and the neighbouring countries located to the west, with which it shares the historical province Banat.

Based on analysis of the results obtained from the literature, the analysis of official documents, corroborated with the information acquired through questionnaires and interviews, we can conclude that the practice of cross-border relations feeds more socio-cultural processes in the communities studied, such as:

-

Preservation of the ethno-cultural identity, due to the communication with the compatriots from the country of origin of the ethnic group and with the compatriots from the Serbian area of the historical Banat (the case of the Hungarian and Bulgarian communities);

-

Intercultural communication and intercultural co-construction, as this practice supports people who live in different countries and speak different languages, but feel that they have a common regional identity and common goals;

-

Territorial deconstruction, given that the social representation of the border is detached from the officially established model. The perception and assumption of common goals by representatives of communities of the same ethnic origin, but located on both sides of the state border, induces an effect of its permeability, perceived at the subjective individual level and at the institutional level, by carrying out common projects.

The implications deriving from the practice of cross-border relations, following the cross-over model founded by Étienne Balibar (2009), are numerous. In addition to the benefits of preserving ethnic identity and intercultural dialogue, both the literature (Crețan et al. 2008; Săgeată 2014; Ploae 2017) and data acquired in the field indicate opportunities for economic development, conservation of cultural and natural heritage, and improving the quality of life in communities.

6. Conclusions

The multi-layer cross-border interactions that take place between the communities studied and the countries neighbouring Romania in the western part, Serbia and Hungary, have deep roots and are manifested in an active way. The regional identity and intercultural co-construction of the Banat social landscape have always nourished interpersonal and institutional connections. Both Romania’s good neighbour policy and European integration have encouraged these links.

Deconstruction of territory in the cross-border area studied brings to light multiple elements of difference in the perception of the territory and its boundaries. These stem from the reconsideration of the territoriality and regional personality of Banat. The territorial integrity of Romania and of the neighbouring countries are not the object of live debate. Again, few respondents have plans to (re)emigrate to the country of origin of their ethnic group. The majority of respondents stated that they only make visits to their country of origin and cultivate socio-cultural relationships with their co-nationals. This assumption of a threefold identity—ethnic, civic-national, and regional—generates particularities in the perception of territory and in its cultural construction.

On the other hand, the intercultural solidarity specific to Banat, which we have identified in Timiș County, is favourable to the cultivation of cross-border relations in various domains between the three neighbouring countries. The representatives of minority ethnic communities whom we researched declared themselves interested in contributing to the improvement and development of these relations, with an awareness that their position in Romanian society was also influenced by relations between their host country and the country of origin of their ethnic group. Likewise, the sentiment of regional belonging that Banat people feel (conscious as they are that Romanians make up a majority in Banat and that two-thirds of Banat is in Romania), and the benevolent attitude of the Romanian authorities, are reflected in the strengthening of a feeling of loyalty towards Romania as host country. We should mention in this context that it was extremely difficult to achieve a hierarchy of current territorial constructs (Romania, Banat, Timiș County, place of residence) based on the feelings of belonging expressed by questionnaire respondents. Many refused to put these constructs into a hierarchy and stated firmly that they perceived them as a single unit that could not be divided.

The local ethno-cultural diversity has lasted for about 250 years in Timiș County and in the whole Banat region, without having undergone conflicts or deep structural reshuffles, except for a slow process of increasing the share of the basic national element in each of the three countries, which is divided in historical Banat. This diversity is animated by coexistence, co-participation and intercultural exchanges, with the preservation of local identities and regional plurality. This creates the conditions for ensuring equity in the social life of local authorities and for participating in decision-making, regardless of culture or ethnicity.

The cross-border relations with the countries of origin of the analyzed ethnic communities from Timiș County give an extra maturity to the local communities, through multidirectional dialogue across borders and mutual sharing of good practices. These are also favorable premises for preserving local identities and increasing quality of life through regular cross-border contacts and accessing local development funding, based on mirror projects, both in Romania (Timiș County) and in countries of origin of the researched minority communities.

From the answers to the questionnaires and interviews, it appears that the socio-cultural model of Banat ensures good resilience in the local communities. Sharing complementary, sometimes competing values, they are attractive and efficient competitive environments, able to better cope with the restructuring induced by glocalization processes: they attract investors, promote endogenous development, retain young people and project optimistic prospects. There are some differences, however, and they depend on the level of development, the degree of interest and involvement of the country of origin, as well as the entrepreneurial spirit of each community.

This study focused on the cross-border area of Timiș County, and confirms aspects of the concept of social sustainability revealed in the international literature. The focus was on the positive aspects of social cohesion, as a result of the evolution of society as a whole (Rasouli and Kumarasuriyar 2016; Eizenberg and Jabareen 2017). The European agenda also places an important position on social sustainability, in the context of the process of European integration and cohesion of member countries (Biart 2002). We emphasize in this context that historically constructed intercultural social cohesion and regional identity, revealed at the level of the studied region, contribute to the increase of cohesion between countries through social solidarity, economic cooperation and cross-border political cooperation.

Compared to previous studies, this study complements and empirically substantiates, through applied field research, the intraregional and cross-border intercultural interactions of the Hungarian, Serbian and Bulgarian ethnic minority communities of Timiș County, by revealing the purpose and meaning of these interactions. This issue has been addressed in the current context of the European integration process. The main advantage of combining documentary studies with field hypothesis testing is revelation of the reality and the development of previous studies on this complex issue, which does not support nuances in the context of the historical evolution of the region. The main disadvantages that accompany field studies derive from the subjectivism of the respondents and from the influences of the historical context in which the field research is done. It is desirable that research on this issue be done longitudinally, in order to judge influences from the geopolitical and economic systems on the social imaginary of the studied communities.