$
£ ¥€
social sciences
Article
A Sample of Resilient Intercultural Coexistence in Ethnic
Hungarian, Serbian and Bulgarian Communities in
Western Romania
Iancu-Constantin Berceanu 1 and Nicolae Popa 2, *
Citation: Berceanu, Iancu-Constantin,
and Nicolae Popa. 2022. A Sample of
Resilient Intercultural Coexistence in
Ethnic Hungarian, Serbian and
Bulgarian Communities in Western
Romania. Social Sciences 11: 320.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
socsci11080320
Received: 2 February 2022
Accepted: 10 July 2022
Published: 22 July 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 320. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11080320
1 Doctoral School of Geography, West University of Timisoara, 300223 Timisoara, Romania;
iancu.berceanu81@e-uvt.ro
2 Department of Geography, West University of Timisoara, 300223 Timisoara, Romania
* Correspondence: nicolae.popa@e-uvt.ro
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 Timis, 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.
Keywords: deconstruction of territory; intercultural co-construction; regional identity; ethnic minorities;
cross-border relations; Banat; 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, suprana-
tional 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 con-
structions, 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
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/socsci
Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 320 2 of 24

in the present-day representations and behaviours of the ethnic minorities of a County in

western Romania.
The specific objectives are as follows:
1. T identify the mechanismes of the identity construction of the minority ethnic com-
munities in the cross-border area of Timis, County, with its specific features.
2. To draw some types of representation of territoriality and territorial identity in the
studied communities.
3. 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.
4. To understand how intercultural coexistence occurs and how intercultural co-construction
is achieved in the communities studied;
5. 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 Timis, 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:
1. 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.
2. Cross-border communication between homologous minority ethnic communities is
supported by their regional identity (belonging to the historical Banat).
3. Multicultural coexistence in Timis, County has generated a resilient model of intercul-
turality supported by a common regional identity, that of Banat.
4. The permanent intercultural co-construction at society level, based on the regional
identity, in the current context of European integration supports a process of decon-
struction and territorial reconstruction in the cross-border Banat, to which ethnic
minorities from Timis, County actively contribute.
We opted to take as our case study Timis, 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 voca-
tion, 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 de-
construction, cross-border space and interculturality, which we consider indispensable for
understanding the social transformations in Timis, 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
Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 320 3 of 24

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 Timis, 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, espe-
cially the lowlands of Timis, County. Preference was given to colonizations with Catholic
populations—especially Germans—from different regions of the vast empire (Kahl and
Jordan 2004; Cret, an et al. 2008), but also from outside the empire, such as the Catholic
Bulgarians, since 1732 (Muntean 1990; Cret, an 1999), even groups of Orthodox (Serbs), previ-
ously 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 (Cret, an 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. Hav-
ing 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, ir-
respective 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 carry-
ing 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
Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 320 4 of 24

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 subdivi-
sions) 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 insti-
tutionally 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 Bardas,
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 terri-
torial 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,
Cris, ana (Partium) and Maramures, , in which the elements of difference in discourses re-
garding 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
Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 320 5 of 24

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, be-
cause 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 infras-
tructure, 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; Ancut, a 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 Eurore-
Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 320 6 of 24

gion 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; Babet, i 2008), histori-
cal (Neumann 2012; Constantin and Lungu-Badea 2014), geographical (Voiculescu 2005;
Cret, an et al. 2008). Studies on ethnic identity (Cret, an et al. 2008; Gidó 2012, 2013), ethnic
minorities (Cret, an 1999) and interethnic relations (Andreescu 2004; Buzărnescu et al. 2004;
Kahl and Jordan 2004; Cret, an 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 corrobo-
ration 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 dimen-
sions of the relations of the Hungarian, Serbian and Ukrainian ethnic minorities in Timis,
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 Timis, County. According to the
most recent census figures (those of 2011) there are 42 localities in Timis, 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
Timis, oara 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 Timis, 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.
Soc.
Soc.Sci. 2022,11,
Sci.2022, 11,320
x FOR PEER REVIEW 107 of 24
25

Figure1.1. Timis
Figure Timiș County—Ethnic minority communities in which field research was conducted (the
, County—Ethnic minority communities in which field research was conducted (the
map shows only
map shows only thethe administrative-territorial
administrative-territorialunits
unitsin
inwhich
which ethnic
ethnic minorities
minorities each
each have
have more
more than
than
20% of the total population in at least one locality, as well as cities with numerically significant
20% of the total population in at least one locality, as well as cities with numerically significant
minority communities).
minority communities).

Fromquestionnaire
Each the answers contained
given by the interviewees
43 questions (seeand the opinions expressed
the questionnaire in the annexes). by theThe re-
spondents to the questionnaires it turns out that, in their
answers to these were processed in the Excel 2016 program, and the most significant resultsimagination, Banat remained
“whole”,
served to considering that the issue
clarify the research state border
and to drawn
build the after the First
topics World in
addressed War thisseparates two
article. The
countries or two states, but it cannot break the intimate connection
questionnaire directly targeted the preservation of ethnic identity (questions 9, 10 and 11), identity among the
inhabitants.
the relationship Thewithquestionnaires
communities show
of thethat 42.83%
same of Hungarian
ethnicity (questionsand Bulgarian
18–21), respond-
the relationship
ents maintain direct and stable connections with people
with the country of origin of the ethnic group (questions 12–16, 21), the relationship withwho speak the same mother
the
host country and the Romanian population (questions 10, 17, 22–25), the relationshipdowith
tongue in Serbian Banat. A representative of the Bulgarian community said that “I not
feel like a foreigner when I cross the border in Serbia, in the
other ethnic groups (questions 23–25), and attachment to different territorial constructs and old Banat. The official lan-
guage ofidentity
regional the country differs,
(questions 10,but the old
13–17). Wearchitecture
measured the of character
the villagesand(aslevel
it was built in the
of attachment
Austro-Hungarian
of respondents directly period) and the
by giving custom
a score of using
(question the
17), and mother tongue,
indirectly mutual tolerance
by revealing the role
between
of ethnic groups,
local, regional, nationalhaveand remained
supranational as they were and
authorities are today
(question 10), in
theThe Romanian
perception of
Banat”. Another
phenomena respondent,
occurring at differenta Hungarian, remarked
territorial levels, suchthat: “in the villages
as migration, acrossofthe
preservation bor-
ethnic
der we still
identity, have relatives
education, carryingand, in the cemeteries,
out socio-economic there are
activities, andburied relatives of
communication our ances-
(questions 8,
tors. Banat was divided as a territory, but we have our history and our tradition”. A Ser-
11–22).
bianTherespondent
interviewsremarked
were applied that “Banat means the
to individuals with whole
a roleterritory, as it was,
in preserving between
cultural the
identity
Tisza,
and thethe Mureș
practice ofand the Danube.
cross-border I amin
relations a these
Serb from Banat, and
communities across the of
(coordinators border, I go to
cross-border
Banat. There,
projects, deputy I meet Serbs,
mayors, Hungarians,
members Romanians—also
of parliament representing from Banat. The
minorities, official name
representatives
of NGOs,
Banat teachers,
has been priests,
retained and the member of the Timis, county Schools Inspectorate
in Serbia”.
responsible
With the forhelp
teaching
of thethrough the medium
questionnaire, of the minority
we aimed to evaluate, languages).
by awarding The interviews,
points, the
comprising 9 open-ended
degree of attachment thatkeythequestions,
respondents wereshow
classically exploited
in relation by including
to a series the answers
of different territo-
in a common
rial constructs matrix
(Banat,(see the interview
Timiș County, EU guide in the annexes).
Romania, etc.). Results gave regional/local be-
We the
longing alsohighest
used other
scores, field research
closely methods,
followed including
by country observation
of origin and hostand immersion,
country (Figure
which
2). As was possiblethe
completing because we tended
questionnaire to participate
allowed them toinexpress
the cultural activities
themselves of different
freely on this
issue, anonymously and without the constraints of a hierarchy, a significant proportion of
Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 320 8 of 24

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; Cret, an 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 (Ilut, 1997; Rotaru and Ilut, 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 method-
ological principles and the concepts that underlie the phenomena observed in the territory.
We considered the clarification of the following concepts: territory, territoriality and semi-
otics 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 Timis, 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). The 300 valid question-
naires recovered from respondents from the Hungarian, Serbian and Bulgarian minority
ethnic communities in Timis, 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 Uni-
versity of Timis, oara and published in volume or in national and international publications.
Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 320 9 of 24

Table 1. Number of questionnaires and interviews applied in Timis, County.

Locality Number of Number of

Administrative Unit
(Village/Town/City) Questionnaires Interviews
Bodo Balint, 20 -
Bres, tea Denta 8 -
Buzias, Buzias, - 1
Cenei Cenei 30 -
Dinias, Peciu Nou 30 -
Dudes, tii Vechi Dudes, tii Vechi 50 2
Dumbrăvit, a Dumbrăvit, a 20 -
Otelec Otelec 20 -
Sânnicolau Mare Sânnicolau Mare 3 5
Sânpetru Mare Sânpetru Mare 20 -
Timis, oara Timis, oara 30 7
T, ipari Cos, teiu 20 -
Tormac Tormac 30 -
Valcani Valcani - 1
Varias, Varias, 19 -
Total 300 16

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 Timis, 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 Timis, 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 Timis, oara 2021).
However, although the inhabitants belonging to different ethnic minorities are spread
throughout the territory of Timis, 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). Analysis of the documentary
evidence and of the empirical information we gathered demonstrates that activities de-
signed 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).
Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 320 10 of 24

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

Localities with a Share of Over 20% of at Least One Ethnic

No. of Minority
% of Total
Ethnic Minority Inhabitants Percentage in Percentage of the
Population Number of
2011 Total Localities Total Minority
Localities
with Minorities 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
83,314 12.19 42 13.29 100
population
(Source: Population and Housing Census of Romania 2011).

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 Mures, ), even though the region has been subdivided and
administratively reorganised a number of times since 1918 (Ancut, a 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 (Babet, i 2008).
From the answers given by the interviewees and the opinions expressed by the respon-
dents 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 Mures, 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, Timis, 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 re-
spondents 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.
Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 25

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 ex-
Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 320 11 of 24
tremely similar scores, as a proof of the solid integration, at the mental level, of the terri-
torial constructs under consideration.

Figure 2.2. Degree

Figure Degree of
of attachment
attachment of of representatives
representatives ofof national
national minorities
minorities investigated
investigated in
in Timis
Timiș,
County in 2020 to a range of territorial constructs (percentages of maximum score—based on
County in 2020 to a range of territorial constructs (percentages of maximum score—based on social social
perception questionnaire).
perception questionnaire).

Regarding interculturality
Regarding interculturality and and intercultural
intercultural co-construction,
co-construction, field
field studies
studies conducted
conducted by by
psychosociologist Alin Gavreliuc (2003) two decades ago show
psychosociologist Alin Gavreliuc (2003) two decades ago show that, for example, a Ro- that, for example, a Roma-
nian from
manian fromBanatBanatfeels closer
feels to atoSerb
closer or aor
a Serb German
a German fromfromBanat than than
Banat to a Romanian
to a Romanian from
another
from region
another of Romania.
region of Romania.The author also specifies
The author that the
also specifies thatethnic minorities
the ethnic he ques-
minorities he
tioned expressed
questioned expressedtheirtheir
firm firm
solidarity with with
solidarity the Romanians
the Romanians in Banat. This regional
in Banat. other-
This regional
ness has been
otherness has explained,
been explained, on theon onethe hand,
oneby the interethnic
hand, solidarity
by the interethnic built in atbuilt
solidarity leastintwo
at
centuries of coexistence and, on the other hand, by the common
least two centuries of coexistence and, on the other hand, by the common regional identity, regional identity, regard-
less of theofassumed
regardless the assumed ethnic identity.
ethnic OneOne
identity. respondent,
respondent, a school
a school inspector
inspector forfor
Hungarian
Hungar-
medium
ian medium instruction,
instruction, underlined
underlined thatthat
“activities
“activitiescarried out out
carried in common
in common demonstrate
demonstrate that
we face
that similar
we face problems,
similar problems, and and
this this
has has
the theeffect of bringing
effect of bringing peoplepeoplecloser together,
closer together,re-
gardless ofoftheir
regardless theirnationality”.
nationality”.
The Church has always
The always beenbeenan animportant
importantsocial socialfactor
factorthat
that hashasa constant
a constant impact
impact on
cultural life (Cobianu-Băcanu 2007). Where the religious
on cultural life (Cobianu-Băcanu 2007). Where the religious community is composed ofcommunity is composed of rep-
resentatives of more
representatives of morethanthanoneone
ethnic group,
ethnic group,as isas
theiscase, for example,
the case, for example, in theinRoman Cath-
the Roman
olic parish
Catholic of Sânnicolau
parish of Sânnicolau Mare Mare (Romania),
(Romania), the the
priest takes
priest takesan an active
active involvement
involvement in
in strengthening
strengthening a climate
a climate of tolerance
of tolerance andand interethnic
interethnic solidarity.
solidarity. MoreMore than than
that, that,
he men-he
mentions
tions the thehelphelphe he received
received from
from thethe RomaniansofofMakó
Romanians Makó(Hungary),
(Hungary), on on the occasion of of
some
some lay
lay religious
religious and and cultural
cultural activities
activities thatthat took
took place
place inincollaboration
collaboration with with the
the Roman
Roman
Catholic
Catholic community there. there.ThisThiswas was a vivid
a vivid example
example of intercultural
of intercultural solidarity,
solidarity, given given
that
that not all the participants from Sânnicolau Mare knew
not all the participants from Sânnicolau Mare knew Hungarian well, any more than Hungarian well, any more thanall
all
thethe Romanians
Romanians from from
Makó Makóknew knew Romanian.
Romanian. The priest
The priest added added the detail
the detail that when
that when social
social and cultural
and cultural eventsevents take place,
take place, representatives
representatives of other ofdenominations
other denominations and ethnicand groups
ethnic
groups are invariably
are invariably invited,invited,
and thatand thisthat this practice
practice is widespread
is widespread in the across
in the region region allacross all
confes-
confessional communities.
sional 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
 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
Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 320 would have no objection to having a neighbour of another ethnicity or that he or a12close of 24
relative marry someone of another ethnicity. However, respondents declared their attach-
ment to Romania in a proportion of over 88%, which is why we are inclined to believe that
their positive
positive attitude
attitude towardstowards
BanatBanat residents
residents of other
of other ethnicities
ethnicities has a has a proactive
proactive signifi-
significance
cance and is not mainly directed against Romanian residents from other
and is not mainly directed against Romanian residents from other regions of the country regions of the
country (Gavreliuc
(Gavreliuc 2003). 2003).
Thequestionnaire
The questionnairesurvey
surveyconducted
conductedby by us
us in
in the
the mentioned
mentioned ethnic
ethnic minority
minority commu-
commu-
nitiesalso
nities also revealed
revealed great
greatopenness
openness on on the
thepart
partofofrespondents
respondentstowards
towardsmembers
membersof ofother
other
ethnicgroups.
ethnic groups.When
Whenasked
askedwhether
whetherthey theywould
wouldaccept
acceptneighbours
neighboursofofa adifferent
different ethnicity,
ethnicity, a
a majority of 75.33% replied in the affirmative. The level of acceptance of people
majority of 75.33% replied in the affirmative. The level of acceptance of people of a different of a dif-
ferent ethnicity
ethnicity intoextended
into one’s one’s extended
familyfamily
is high.is Over
high. 67%
Overof 67%
theof the respondents
respondents declared
declared that
that have
they they have members
members of another
of another ethnicity
ethnicity in their
in their extended
extended family
family (Figure
(Figure 3). Many
3). Many of
of the
the respondents
respondents proved
proved to have
to have gradegrade
I (31%)I (31%)
and IIand II (36%)
(36%) relations
relations of ethnicities,
of other other ethnicities,
most
most frequently
frequently Romanians.
Romanians.

Figure3.3.Percentage
Figure Percentageof
ofrespondents
respondentswho
whohave
havemembers
membersofof another
another ethnicity
ethnicity in in their
their extended
extended fam-
family.
ily.
Observations made in the communities studied also demonstrate the plurilingualism
Observations
of respondents. Themade
directinobservations
the communities
madestudied also demonstrate
in the studied communitiesthe attest
plurilingualism
to a large
of respondents.
number The direct
of respondents whoobservations
know languagesmade in the
other studied
than communities
their mother tongue attest
and theto official
a large
number ofRomanian.
language, respondentsThiswho knowthe
confirms languages
results ofother
otherthan their studies,
previous mother tongue and thethe
which indicate of-
ficial of
habit language,
the peopleRomanian.
of Banat toThis confirms
learn the results
the mother tongueof of other previous
childhood studies,
friends which
or people in-
from
dicate thefamily
extended habit (Neumann
of the people of Banat
2012; to learn
Micle 2013; Paratheand
mother
Moisetongue
2014). of childhood
This opens the friends
way for or
people from
cultural valuesextended
to migratefamily
inside(Neumann 2012; Micle
those multi-ethnic 2013; Para(Cobianu-Băcanu
communities and Moise 2014). This
2007).
opensA the
further
wayfactor in intercultural
for cultural co-construction
values to migrate is themulti-ethnic
inside those existence ofcommunities
a shared histori-
(Co-
cal and cultural
bianu-Băcanu patrimony. Both historical personalities of different ethnic origins and
2007).
monumental buildings have symbolic value for all Banat residents. Efforts to preserve this
heritage are undertaken in common, with the majority Romanian population also partici-
pating, 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
Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 320 13 of 24

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 Dudes, tii Vechi (a Bulgarian
community), the Lada cu Zestre [Dowry Chest) Festival, and the Festival of Ethnic Groups;
the last two organised by Timis, 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 Timis, 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
Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW
relations; affinities of a cultural and especially language-based nature were invoked 14 of 25
less
frequently (Figure 4).

Figure4.4.Types
Figure Typesofof connections
connections between
between members
members of ethnic
of ethnic minority
minority communities
communities (Hungarians,
(Hungarians, Serbs,
Serbs, Bulgarians) in Timiș County with their country of origin, grouped by area of interest
Bulgarians) in Timis, County with their country of origin, grouped by area of interest (percentages(per-
of
centages of mentions by
mentions by respondents). respondents).

A percentage
Field research of 58.77% of Bulgarian
demonstrated respondents
that ethnic Hungariansinvoked a common
in Timis language and
, County have a high
the preservation of ethnic identity when asked about relations with their co-nationals
level of interest in cultural relations with their country of origin. 55% of ethnic Hungarian in
their country of origin; for relations with their co-nationals in neighbouring
respondents to the questionnaire mentioned cultural activities and the preservation of the Serbia, the
figure wasand
language 78%.
of Itthe
is worth mentioning
historical traditionthat the Bulgarians
as motives in the areaa of
for maintaining study and those
relationship with
who co-nationals
their live in Serbia in both
their speak
countrya of
dialect
originform of Bulgarian
(Figure 4). Turningthat differs
to the from thebetween
relationship 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 ques-
tionnaire 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
Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 320 14 of 24

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 Timis, 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 Timis, 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 ques-
tionnaire 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 preserva-
tion 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
Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 320 15 of 24

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 Timis, 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 Hun-
garian 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 contribu-
tion, 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, Timis, oara).
In conclusion, successful bilateral projects have strengthened relations between the
countries, while dialogue and intercultural co-construction have improved the social per-
ception 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 Timis, County.
All respondents to interview referred to the advantages of this common EU member-
ship 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”.
Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 320 16 of 24

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 respon-
dents to interviews. One of these, with twenty years’ involvement in promoting the folklore
and traditions of the Serbian community in the west of Timis, 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 respon-
dents), 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 Timis, 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
Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 320 17 of 24

consolidated the empathetic relationship and reinforced a reciprocally positive attitude on

the part of both Romanians and Serbs.
In the Bulgarian Catholic communities in Timis, 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 Timis, 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
Timis, 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 Timis, 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 Timis, 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 as-
sumed 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
Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 320 18 of 24

process of European integration, reactivated the social image of the solidarity of this re-
gion 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 con-
structs (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, re-
vealed 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 (Babet, i 2008; Cret, an 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 cul-
ture, 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 Timis, County
(Cenad, S, andra, 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, maintain-
Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 320 19 of 24

ing their own organizational structures, but initiating common activities, missions and
organizational structures” (Cuciuc 1999, p. 12). The common goals of the various reli-
gious 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 associa-
tions 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 (Babet, i 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
Timis, 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 inter-
views in the studied minority ethnic communities, established via multiple channels of
communication, overlap with inter-state and inter-institutional realities. Thus, the inter-
national border along the western side of Timis, 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-
Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 320 20 of 24

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 inter-
views, 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 compa-
triots 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 sup-
ports 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 (Cret, an 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
Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 320 21 of 24

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 Timis, 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, Timis, 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 Timis, 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 com-
munities from Timis, 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 (Timis, 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 com-
plementary, 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 Timis, 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 empha-
size 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 cohe-
sion 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 Timis, County, by
Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 320 22 of 24

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.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, I.-C.B. and N.P.; methodology, N.P. and I.-C.B.; validation,
N.P.; formal analysis, I.-C.B. and N.P.; investigation, I.-C.B.; resources, I.-C.B. and N.P.; data curation,
I.-C.B. and N.P.; writing—original draft preparation, I.-C.B.; writing—review and editing, N.P. and
I.-C.B.; supervision, N.P.; project administration, N.P. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
Adam, Simona. 2008. Socializare interculturală s, i construct, ie identitară în discursul autografic bănăt, ean. In Banatul din memorie. Studii
de caz. Edited by Smaranda Vultur. Timis, oara: Editura Marineasa, pp. 153–73.
Aitken, Susan C. 2009. Community. In International Encyclopedia of Human Geography. Edited by Rob Kitchin and Nigel Thrift. Oxford:
Elsevier, vol. 2, pp. 221–25.
Ancut, a, Cătălina. 2008. Studiu Geografic al Disparităt, ilor Teritoriale din Banatul Românesc. Timis, oara: Editura Mirton.
Anderson, Timothy G. 2020. Cameralism and the production of space in the eighteenth-century Romanian Banat: The grid villages of
the ‘Danube Swabians’. Journal of Historical Geography 69: 55–67. [CrossRef]
Andreescu, Gabriel. 2004. Nat, iuni s, i minorităt, i. Ias, i: Editura Polirom.
Andreescu, Anghel, and Dan Bardas, . 2016. Act, iunile separatiste care vizează România. Bucures, ti: Editura RAO.
Babet, i, Adriana. 2008. Banatul, un Eldorado între frontiere. In Identitate de frontieră în Europa lărgită. Edited by Romanit, a Constanitnescu.
Ias, i: Editura Polirom, pp. 105–15.
Balibar, Étienne. 2009. Europe as borderland. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 27: 190–215. [CrossRef]
Ballinger, Pamela. 2007. Beyond The “New” Regional Question? Regions, Territoriality and Space of Anthropology in Southeastern
Europe. In Region, Regional Identity and Regional Vision in Southeastern Europe, Part. I. Ethnologia Balkanica. Edited by Klaus Roth
and Ulf Bruuberger. Berlin: Lit Verlag, vol. II.
Barth, Fredrik. 1969. Introduction. In Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference. Edited by Fredrik Barth.
London: Allen and Unwin.
Bădescu, Ilie. 2011. Sociologie rurală. Bucures, ti: Editura Mica Valahie.
Bârlea, Octavian. 2013. Ecumenism românesc. Bucures, ti: Editura Galaxia Gutenberg.
Berecz, Ágoston. 2021. Top-down and bottom-up Magyarization in multiethnic Banat towns under dualist Hungary (1867–1914).
European Review of History: Revue Européenne D’histoire 28: 422–40. [CrossRef]
Biart, Michel. 2002. Social sustainability as part of the social agenda of the European Community. In Soziale Nachhaltigkeit: Von
der Umweltpolitik zur Nachhaltigkeit? Arbeiterkammer Wien, Informationen zur Umweltpolitik 149. Edited by Thomas Ritt. Wien:
Bundeskammer für Arbeiter und Angestellte, pp. 5–10.
Brubaker, Rogers. 1999. Migrat, iile dezeterogenizării etnice în “Noua Europă”. In Sociologia migrat, iei. Teorii s, i studii de caz românes, ti.
Edited by Remus Anghel and Horvàth Gabriel. Ias, i: Editura Polirom.
Burridge, Andrew, Nick Gill, Austin Kocher, and Lauren Martin. 2017. Polymorphic borders. Territory Politics Governance 5: 239–51.
[CrossRef]
Buzărnescu, S, tefan, Sorin Pribac, Mircea Neagu, and Ana Buzărnescu. 2004. Un model de interculturalitate activă: Banatul românesc.
Timis, oara: Editura de Vest.
Camilleri, Carmel, Joseph Kastersztein, Edmond-Marc Lipiansky, Hanna Malewska-Peyre, Isabelle Taboada-Leonetti, and Ana Vasquez.
1990. Stratégies Identitaires. Paris: P.U.F.
Cantle, Ted. 2012. Interculturalism—The New Era of Cohesion and Diversity. London: Palgrave MacMillan.
Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 320 23 of 24

Castañeda, Ernesto. 2020. Introduction to “Reshaping the World: Rethinking Borders”. Social Sciences 9: 214. [CrossRef]
Cebotari, Svetlana. 2014. Istoriografia s, i metodologia cercetării geopolitice. Enciclopedia—Revistă de istorie a s, tiint, ei s, i studii enciclopedice.
Nr. 1-2. (6-7). pp. 59–68. Available online: http://dspace.usm.md:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/1500/59_68
_Istoriografia%20si%20metodologia%20cercetarii%20geopoliticii.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed on 27 January 2022).
Cerović, Liubomir. 2005. Sârbii din România din evul mediu tipuriu până în zilele noastre. Timis, oara: Uniunea Sârbilor din România.
Cobianu-Băcanu, Maria. 2007. Românii la contactul dintre culturi—Relat, ii interetnice. Bucures, ti: Editura România pur s, i simplu, Bucures, ti.
Constantin, Elena Claudia, and Georgiana Lungu-Badea. 2014. Interculturality in Banat. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences 116:
3548–52. [CrossRef]
Costachie, Silviu. 2004. Geografie politică—O nouă abordare. Bucures, ti: Editura Universităt, ii din Bucures, ti.
Cret, an, Remus. 1999. Etnie, Confesiune s, i Comportament electoral în Banat. Studiu Geografic (sfârs, itul secolului al XIX-lea s, i secolul al XX-lea.
Timis, oara: Editura Universităt, ii de Vest.
Cret, an, Remus, David Turnock, and Jaco Woudstra. 2008. Identity and multiculturalism in the Romanian Banat. Journal of Mediterranean
Geography 110: 17–26. [CrossRef]
Cuciuc, Constantin. 1999. Tolerant, a ca tranzt, ie spre egalitatea s, i libertatea religioasă. Revista Română de Sociologie serie nouă, anul X, nr. 1–
2. pp. 3–12. Available online: https://www.revistadesociologie.ro/pdf-uri/nr.1-2-1999/CONSTANTIN%20CUCIUC%20art1.pdf
(accessed on 5 December 2021).
Database of the Regional Bureau of Statistics Timis, oara. 2021. Available online: https://timis.insse.ro/ (accessed on 24 March 2021).
Decoville, Antoine, and Frédéric Durand. 2019. Exploring cross-border integration in Europe: How do populations cross borders and
perceive their neighbours. European Urban and Regional Studies 26: 134–57. [CrossRef]
Eizenberg, Efrat, and Yosef Jabareen. 2017. Social Sustainability: A New Conceptual Framework. Sustainability 9: 68. [CrossRef]
Foucher, Michel. 1993. Fragments d’Europe: Atlas de l’Europe médiane et orientale. Paris: Ed. Fayard.
Gavreliuc, Alin. 2003. Mentalitate s, i societate. Cartografii ale imaginarului identitar din Banatul Contemporan. Timis, oara: Editura
Universităt, ii de Vest.
Gidó, Attila. 2012. Cronologia minorităt, ilor nat, ionale, Vol. II. Cluj-Napoca: Editura Institutului pentru Studierea Problemelor
Minoritatilor Nationale.
Gidó, Attila. 2013. Cronologia minorităt, ilor nat, ionale, Vol. III. Cluj-Napoca: Editura Institutului pentru Studierea Problemelor
Minoritatilor Nationale.
Glenny, Misha. 2012. Balkans, Nationalism, War and the Great Powers 1804–2011. New York: Penguin Books.
Gottmann, Jean. 1973. The Significance of Territory. Charlestonville: University of Virginia Press.
Hlihor, Constantin. 2011. Geopolitica de la clasic la postmodern. Bucures, ti: Editura Karta-Graphic.
Hofstede, Geert. 2001. Culture’s Consequences. Comparing Values, Behaviours, Institutions and Organisations across Nations. Thousand Oaks,
London and New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Ilut, , Petre. 1997. Abordarea calitativă a socioumanului. Ias, i: Editura Polirom.
Imperato, Chiara, Brian T. Keum, and Tiziana Mancini. 2021. Does Intercultural Contact Increase Anti-Racist Behavior on Social
Network Sites? Social Sciences 10: 207. [CrossRef]
Jacoby, Sally, and Elinor Ochs. 1995. Co-Construction: An Introduction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 28: 171–83. [CrossRef]
Jodelet, Denise. 2007. Privire generalã asupra metodologiilor calitative. In Metodologia s, tiint, elor Socioumane. Edited by Serge Moscovici
and Fabrice Buschini. Ias, i: Editura Polirom.
Kahl, Thede, and Peter Jordan. 2004. Development of ethnic structure in The Banat. Vienna: Austrian Institute of East and Southeast
European Studies.
Lähdesmäki, Tuuli, Aino-Kaisa Koistinen, and Susanne C. Ylönen. 2020. Introduction: What Is Intercultural Dialogue and Why It Is
Needed in Europe Today? In Intercultural Dialogue in the European Education Policies. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Leu, Valeriu. 2007. Le Banat impérial. In Le Banat: Un Eldorado aux Confins. Edited by Adriana Babeti and Cécile Kovaschazy. Paris:
CIRCE, Université de Paris—Sorbonne, Timis, oara: Brumar Editions, pp. 39–50.
Levey, Geoffrey Brahm. 2012. Interculturalism vs. Multiculturalism: A Distinction without a Difference? Journal of Intercultural Studies
33: 217–24. [CrossRef]
Maclean, Kirsten, Michael Cuthill, and Helen Ross. 2014. Six attributes of social resilience. Journal of Environmental Planning and
Management 57: 144–56. [CrossRef]
McIvor, Charlotte. 2019. Intercultural Dialogue as ‘New’ Interculturalism: Terra Nova Productions, the Arrivals Project and the
Intercultural Performative. In Interculturalism and Performance Now. New Directions? Edited by Charlotte McIvor and Jason King.
London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Meer, Nasaar, and Tariq Modood. 2012. How does Interculturalism Contrast with Multiculturalism? Journal of Intercultural Studies 33:
175–96. [CrossRef]
Micle, Maria. 2013. Cultural confluences in the Old Banat. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences 71: 216–21. [CrossRef]
Muntean, Vasile V. 1990. Contributii la istoria Banatului. Timis, oara: Editura Mitropoliei Banatului.
Neumann, Victor. 1997. Identităt, i multiple în Europa regiunilor. Timis, oara: Editura Hestia.
Neumann, Victor. 2012. Interculturalitatea Banatului. Timis, oara: Editura Artpress.
Newman, David, and Annsi Paasi. 1998. Fences and Neighbours in the Postmodern World: Boundary Narratives in Political Geography.
Progress in Human Geography 22: 186–207. [CrossRef]
Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 320 24 of 24

Paasi, Annsi. 1991. Deconstructing Regions: Notes on the Scales of Spatial Life. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 23:
239–56. [CrossRef]
Paasi, Annsi. 1999. The political geography of boundaries at the end of the millennium: Challenges of the de-territorializing world. In
Curtains of Iron and Gold: Reconstructing Borders and Scales of Interaction. Edited by Heikki Eskelinen, Ilkka Liikanen and Jukka
Oksa. London: Ashgate Publishers, pp. 9–24.
Paasi, Annsi. 2003a. Region and place: Regional identity in question. Progress in Human Geography 27: 475–85. [CrossRef]
Paasi, Annsi. 2003b. Territory. In A Companion to Political Geography. Edited by John Agnew, Katharyne Mitchell and Gerard Toal.
Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 109–22.
Painter, Joe. 2010. Rethinking Territory. Antipode 42: 1090–118. [CrossRef]
Para, Iulia, and Judith Moise. 2014. Intercultural Aspects and Tolerance in the Banat County. Editorial Department II: 418–27.
Pascaru, Mihai. 2005. Introducere în sociologia regională. Cluj-Napoca: Editura Argonaut.
Perkmann, Markus. 2003. Cross-Border Regions in Europe: Significance and Drivers of Regional Cross-Border Cooperation. European
Urban and Regional Studies 10: 153–71. [CrossRef]
Ploae, Cătălin. 2017. Cultural influences in cross border cooperation. An overview on Romania—Serbia cross border EU financed
programme. Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence 11: 616–24. [CrossRef]
Popa, Nicolae. 2006. Frontiere, regiuni transfrontaliere şi dezvoltare regională în Europa Mediană. Timişoara: Editura Universităţii de Vest.
Population and Housing Census of Romania. 2011. Available online: https://www.recensamantromania.ro/rpl-2011/rezultate-2011/
(accessed on 28 October 2021).
Râmbu, Nicolae. 2019. Comunicare interculturală. Ias, i: Editura Universităt, ii “Alexandru Ioan Cuza” din Ias, i.
Rasouli, Aso Haji, and Anoma Kumarasuriyar. 2016. The Social Dimention of Sustainability: Towards Some Definitions and Analysis.
Journal of Social Science for Policy Implications 4: 23–34. [CrossRef]
Rex, John. 1998. Rasă s, i etnie. Bucures, ti: Editura DU Style.
Rotariu, Traian. 2016. Fundamente metodologice ale s, tiint, elor sociale. Ias, i: Editura Polirom.
Rotaru, Traian, and Petre Ilut, . 2006. Ancheta sociologică şi sondajul de opinie. Ias, i: Editura Polirom.
Rusinov, Denisow. 2002. Popoarele iugoslave. In Nat, ionalismul est-european în secolul al XX-lea. Edited by Peter F. Sugar. Bucures, ti:
Curtea Veche Publishing, pp. 251–341.
Săgeată, Radu. 2014. Euroregiunile de cooperare transfrontalieră din Bazinul inferior al Dunării. Studiu geografic. Bucures, ti: Editura
Academiei Române.
Săgeată, Radu. 2020. The Evolution of the Ethnic and Political Romanian Hungarian Border As Reflected in Sources. Transylvanian
Review XXVIII: 3–22.
Smith, Sara. 2020. Political Geography: A Critical Introduction. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.
Soja, Edward. 1971. The Political Organisation of Space. Washington, DC: Association of American Geographers.
Sollors, Werner. 2001. Ethnic Groups/Ethnicity: Historical Aspects. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences.
Edited by N. Joseph Smelser and Paul B. Baltes. Pergamon: Elsevier, pp. 4813–17.
van Houtum, Henk. 1999. Internationalisation and Mental Borders. Tijdschrift Voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 90: 329–35.
[CrossRef]
van Houtum, Henk. 2000. An overview of European geographical research on borders and border regions. Journal of Borderlands Studies
15: 57–83. [CrossRef]
Voiculescu, Sorina. 2005. Oraşele din Câmpia de Vest. Structuri şi funcţionalităţi urbane. Timis, oara: Editura Universităţii de Vest.
Wassenberg, Birte, Bernard Reitel, Jean Peyrony, and Jean Rubio. 2015. Territorial Cooperation in Europe. A Historical Perspective.
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.