The Revolution of 1989 and the question of national identity: a comparative study of the Romanian diaspora in the United States and Canada

(1)

The Revolution of 1989 and the question of national identity: a

comparative study of the Romanian diaspora in the United States

and Canada

Man standing with flag. Digital image. The BBC. December 18, 2019.

Author: Paula Alexe 12059188

MSc Thesis Political Science: International Relations

Research Project: Protracted violence, mixed emotions & the search for well-being Supervisor: Dr. Nel Vandekerckhove

Secondary reader: Dr. Vivienne Matthies-Boon June 26, 2020

(2)

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Nel Vandekerckhove, for her dedication in helping me and my peers throughout this five-month journey. Despite the uncertainties and insecurities imposed by the global pandemic, she made sure to keep me motivated. She also made sure to give feedback on each chapter and made herself available whenever I had questions or concerns. Without her encouragement and feedback, this thesis would not have been possible.

I would also like to thank all seventeen interviewees from the United States and Canada who took the time to talk to me. It was a pleasure hearing about their amazing and challenging life experiences.

Last, but not least, I would like to thank my family and friends for their endless love and support. I couldn’t have done this without them.

(4)

1. Introduction

In an increasingly globalizing world, the concept of national identity is becoming more contested and difficult to define (Negrea, 2012). With the continuous implementation of interdependent practices by states and non-governmental organizations, the world is becoming more connected by social media, and freedom of movement (Pécaud et al., 2007). In essence, our generation cannot fathom times in which borders were closed and citizens were being watched by Ceausescu’s secret police forces, called the “Securitate” (Deletant, 2001, p.35). Can one presently envision standing in line for hours just to buy bread and oil? I have only heard of such stories from my parents, and I have spent my whole life trying to figure out how their generation coped with living under an oppressive regime. Hence, I wanted to share the stories of people who lived in a country where certain freedoms enjoyed today were a foreign concept. Romania was under the iron-fist of Nicolae Ceausescu for twenty-five years (Kideckel, 2004), and his memory is still a subject of debate amongst Romanians. Kideckel (2004), argues “opinion polls show that most Romanians would gladly return him to rule to escape their current economic insecurity and put an end to pervasive corruption” (Kideckel, 2004, p.125). Due to these economic insecurities following the Revolution of 1989, many Romanians chose to relocate and seek opportunities in different countries.

Since many people felt disappointed with the unfulfilled promises of the Revolution, the goal of this thesis is to highlight how people feel towards their Romanian national identity in response to the political events of 1989, and their experience moving abroad. For the purpose of this research project, the focus will be on the Romanian diaspora. After 1989, as well as before 1989, Romanians have been on an exodus out of Romania looking for economic prosperity elsewhere, leaving behind their past, and in some cases, their families (Trandafoiu, 2013). This emigration started in the 1990’s, however, increased in intensity after the new millennium “when the restrictions to travel involving visa requirements and requirements to prove financial

sustainability for the duration of travel were lifted” (Careja, 2013, p.78). Seeing that Romania went through a difficult economic transition, this resulted in high unemployment, and diminished savings (ibid.). Moreover, despite the EU’s acceptance of Romania as a candidate for

membership in the early 2000’s, the EU Commission argued that Romania failed to establish a market economy, while spontaneously failing to gain the Romanian population’s trust in “values

(5)

of democracy and the free market” (Chen, 2003, p.200). As Careja’s (2013) study proves, Romania’s emigrant community holds a strong link to Romania. For this thesis I conducted interviews with emigrants from Canada and the US to see whether they keep a close link to their home country. In addition, I found that most literature does not focus on the specificity of the Revolution and how it may have impacted those who chose to emigrate to North America in the post-communist era. Furthermore, while there are many diasporas in this modern world,

Romania in particular is rich in unexplored topics and holds a communist and post-communist history worth bringing to the surface (Rogobete, 2004).

This thesis aims to focus on national identity and how it is influenced by the Romanian Revolution of 1989, and the receiving countries of Canada and the United States. Some authors, such as Macri (2011) point to the assertion that the nation is important for a community and it can “be seen as the basic unit of moral economy, in terms both of territory and resources and skills” (Macri, 2011, pp. 128). She further suggests that national identity is also tied to the “home”, since it is synonymous to familiarity, security, and intimacy (ibid.). The problem comes to pin-pointing the factors that form the sense of national identity of a nation in a diaspora who suffered at the hands of the communist regime for decades (Rusu, 2015). The main unit of analysis that is explored in my thesis is the family. The family is the basic unit that allows me to determine the discourses that are present within Romanian families living in North America. The current literature does not shed a light on families, which I believe happen to play a crucial role for future generations of Romanians in Canada and the US. The presence of narratives and history based on experiences lived during the communist regime as well as the 1989 Revolution are analyzed in order to give a better understanding of how certain focal points in history and regime types affect the national identity of individuals living in a diaspora. These narratives are most easily passed through families, as Varan and Cretan (2017) argue, cognitive and

psychological mechanisms play a role in the transfer of “place-based events” (Varan and Cretan, 2017, p.510) between generations. They further justify how family represents an imperative entity in telling and retelling stories, which conclusively transmits feelings experienced during important moments in the past. Thus, by looking at dominant discourses among families, there is potential in narrowing down and addressing the effects of the communist regime on these future generations who choose to live in the diaspora.

(6)

Therefore, the main research question proposed is: “How is the national identity of the

Romanian diaspora who left Romania and is now living in Canada and the United States still affected by the 1989 anti-communist Revolution?” While there is an abundance of literature on

Romanian national identity and the Romanian diaspora, I wanted to take a step further and focus on the North American immigration experience of Romanians. This thesis is a comparative study on the Romanian diaspora in Canada and the United States, with the goal of understanding their perspective on their identity and Romania’s past. I decided to start my interviews with a casual conversation before delving into more serious topics with my respondents. I made sure to choose Romanians who migrated in the 1990’s or later, with the exception of two respondents who left before the Revolution of 1989. Three themes came to the surface while talking to my

interviewees: national identity, diaspora, and communism. Moreover, in order to fulfill the minimum number of interviewees required in order to conduct a comparative study, I chose eight Romanians from Canada, and nine from the United States, totaling to seventeen semi-structured interviews.

Before diving into the breadth of this thesis, it is important to mention why this study bears relevance. The relevance of this thesis in academia is socio-political. My ambition is to enrich the research being conducted on the Romanian diaspora in connection to national identity. It is relevant to Romania, as well as the European Union, since there has been a continuous pattern of emigration out of Romania. It would add to the understanding of how Romania’s government may proceed in the future regarding economic policies and domestic political affairs (Careja, 2013) to better serve Romanians who currently reside in Romania. By conducting research on Romania’s diasporic community, one can become better acquainted with the Romanian psyche, and the history that has shaped the Romanian character. Additionally, extensive research can be done based on my topic, as there are many angles to cover ranging from diaspora politics to psychology of individuals who have survived authoritarian regimes.

(7)

2. Theoretical Framework

This research requires several concepts to be thoroughly investigated as there are many moving parts and concepts that require a basic understanding. Concepts such as national identity, diaspora, communism, and revolution need to be defined in a certain framework that fits this research project in order to help the reader better understand the complexities of these concepts in the Romanian context. Not only that, but the concepts listed above are each subjective to academic work. Concepts such as national identity are explained through different lenses, and thus are complicated to give an objective definition. Due to this research being purely qualitative, none of these concepts hold a precise or definite definition. As an example, national identity can be a tricky concept to grasp, as some scholars view it as a form of ‘othering’, while others see it as a concept which entails factors of culture, language, and history (Triandafyllidou, 1998). This theoretical framework seeks to place all concepts into the perspective of this research, with the goal of giving a better understanding of this comparative study between the Romanian diaspora’s national identity in Canada and the United States of America following the Romanian

Revolution of 1989.

2.1 Communism in Romania

The post-revolution era in Romania cannot be understood without first introducing the concept of communism and its effects on the Romanian population. The Ceausescu regime proved to be one of the worst communist regimes in Eastern Europe by the late 1980s, with poor human rights ratings and economic shocks that pushed the dictator to pay off all foreign debts (Ban, 2012). What is communism and how did it blossom in Romania? The basic idea of

communism stands for the eventual revolution of the proletariat against the capitalist, bourgeoise class. Marx and Engels (2012) called for a revolution of workers to unite against the evil

capitalist bourgeoisie. This idea was appealing to much of the 20th century political movements,

most famously, to the Bolsheviks in Russia. Vladimir Lenin led the Bolshevik Revolution that swept Russia in 1917, eliminated the royal Romanov family, and installed a long-lasting regime that would soon become the Soviet Union. The ideology of communism pushed an agenda for equality and work for all, and soon swept over much of Eastern Europe after the Second World

(8)

War, which resulted in expanding Russian political influence (Brown, 2009). Hardt (2010) clarifies: “communism is defined by not only the abolition of property but also the affirmation of the common – the affirmation of open and autonomous biopolitical production, the self-governed continuous creation of new humanity” (Hardt, 2010, p.355). This is the main characteristic that all former communist states shared. Under the ruling communist party, a collectivist society was induced into existence, thus, shifting the social dynamics as well as the psychology of its

subjects. Communist governments became propaganda machines, indoctrinating people into believing the communist cause (Brown, 2009). Krauss (2002), writes: “under Ceausescu’s brutal leadership, psychology was viewed as a potentially subversive element to his reign. Psychology was thus removed from the universities and was all but nonexistent in other sectors of society” (Krauss, 2002, p.1256). Again, this demonstrates the extent the government went to censor and control in order to eliminate threats to the national communist ideology. This is just one example of how Ceausescu’s regime sought to limit people’s exposure to other perspectives.

2.1.1 What communism meant to Romanians

Collectivization of agriculture began in 1949 in Romania. This resulted in imprisonment and forced labor policies towards peasants. Thus, “according to statistics made after 1989, during the first twenty years of communism, on political reasons, they arrested, detained in prisons and camps, deported or displaced over two million people, meaning one in nine Romanians, 15% of those arrested ending up dead by shooting, torture or extermination in prisons of labour camps, meaning one in every six prisoners” (Serban, 2009, p.108). Despite the ruthlessness, Romanians demonstrated their dissidence in different forms. One form of dissidence was shown by the Romanian diaspora, which was prominent in forming organizations in the West to raise

awareness of the government’s abuse of human rights. Adela Serban (2009) also writes about the United States embracing ideological organizations that went against the communist regime of the East, thus, many Romanians abroad involved themselves in activities such as running radio stations, in order to speak on these macabre Romanian issues (ibid.).

Cristina Petrescu and Dragos Petrescu (2007) write further on the complexities of dissent in communist Romania. They refer to a movement called “resistance in the mountains” (Petrescu and Petrescu, 2007, p.326), which alludes to the period after World War II when Soviet influence gave life to oppositional activity in Romania. Petrescu and Petrescu (2007) note that this

(9)

organize in defense of freedom, and argue: “on the contrary, it reminds a traditional defense tactic used by Romanians since the medieval times, which was applied whenever devastation wars took place on their territory: that of retreating into the forests and mountains instead of confronting directly a too powerful enemy to be beaten. In other words, such patterns of behavior represented the manifestation of an anti-modern political culture” (ibid., p.326-327). This is an important point that is not mentioned by Serban (2009), as it is a rather imperative in the analysis bit of my interviews. Petrescu and Petrescu (2007) touch upon a pattern of Romanians’

tendencies to hide and conform to the system, until the resistance is strong enough to gain adaptability and show prowess. This bravery is only manifested in the coming of the end of Ceausescu’s regime, but even then, there are certain conspiracies and questions around events that took place in December of 1989, which is later discussed by my interviewees.

2.2 What is a revolution? Definitions for Romania’s 1989

Isaac Kramnick (1972) writes on the definitions and definitional issues in describing revolutions. He notes that revolutions are a “cultural phenomenon” (Kramnick, 1972, p.31) that aim to fundamentally change the values and norms in individuals’ world view, inherently changing their perception of reality and their experiences. This definition is the most simplified version of a revolution’s definition due to the fact that it is more efficiently and universally applicable. Since it does not focus on economics or politics, it encompasses more of a

psychological element that can be connected to individuals from a micro level to a macro level. Nonetheless, there are many theorists and historians who define revolutions in terms of politics and economics.

Peter Amann (1962), also writes on the concept of revolution, specifically on redefining revolutions. He puts forth a simple, yet comparative definition, saying, “as I define it, revolution prevails when the state’s monopoly of power is effectively challenged and persists until a monopoly of power is re-established. Such a definition avoids a number of traditional problems: the fine distinction between a coup d’état and a revolution; the degree of social change necessary before a movement may be called revolutionary” (Amann, 1962, p.39). Kramnick (1972) and Amann (1962) both have the common element of change when describing a revolution. Their definitions are a more modern approach to revolution, as Karl Marx called for the element of violence in order for revolutions to be considered “revolutions” (Marx and Engels, 2012). In the

(10)

case of Romania, it becomes rather confusing in describing the events at the end of 1989. The power transfer was relabeled to a democratic transition. However, Ion Iliescu, who took over as Romania’s president, was in fact a member of the Romanian Communist Party (Siani-Davies, 2007). To add to Amann (1962) and Kramnick (1972), Huntington (1968) additionally describes a revolution as “a rapid fundamental, and violent domestic change in the dominate values and myths of society, in its political institutions, social structure, leadership, and government activity policies” (Huntington, 1968, p.264). All of these definitions put forth by these four authors including Marx have one commonality: change. The change is present when referring to the transfer of political power in the context of 1989 Romania.

2.2.1 Coup or revolution?

Authors such as Michael Roskin (1991), believe that Romania did not in fact experience a legitimate revolution due to the transfer of power from Ceausescu to other member of the nomenclature. The post-revolutionary leadership consisted of former communist party members “and as a consequence there has been no fundamental change in Romanian political or social policy” (Roper, 1994, p.405). Roskin (1991) also suggests that Romania’s Revolution came from the top, “and therefore in Romania there was a palace coup rather than a real revolution” (Roper, 1994, p. 406). While Roper (1994) acknowledges and validates Roskin’s (1991) argument, he also believes that based on traditional definitions of revolutions, which refer to transfer of power and inclusion of violence, Romania’s revolution should be considered a legitimate revolution. Nonetheless, Roper (1994) does believe that theories on revolutions should be revised in order to better accommodate the revolutions that swept across Eastern Europe in 1989. In this case, the revolutions that sought to dissolve communism would have a special definition of their own.

Peter Siani-Davies (1996) also writes about the Romanian Revolution and its ambiguous label. He writes, “both coups and revolutions are extra-legal take-overs of power, but compared with a revolution, a coup has a certain ring of illegality and is perceived as conspirational rather than “open” and “spontaneous”” (Siani-Davies, 1996, p.458). This is an important point in the latter part of this research. While there are many conspiracies about the Romanian Revolution, some believe that there were external forces that pushed the population and the nomenclature to overthrow Ceausescu (Deletant, 1994). Siani-Davies (1996) offers a clear argument in laying out the definition of what Romania’s revolution entailed. He writes, “the mass mobilization,

(11)

revolutionary coalition, and subsequent fierce struggle between the revolutionary contenders on the streets of Romania’s cities, all would seem to belong to the repertoire of revolution rather than a coup” (Siani-Davies, 1996, p.459). For the purpose of this paper, while acknowledging other theories around the events in December of 1989, the basic explanation by Siani-Davies (1996) will be the building-block for the data analysis. Due to mass violence and overthrow of the status quo, definitions offered by Huntington (1968) and other authors such as Marx (2012), serve as a basic understanding of Romania’s Revolution and its legitimate claim at calling it a revolution.

2.2.2 A failed revolution?

Romania’s future after 1989 took a negative toll on its people, mainly because the

euphoria of Ceausescu’s ousting was short-lived. The label changed, but the government was led by the same people who were former RCP (Romanian Communist Party members). As

Tismaneanu (1993) writes: “the hallmark of Romania’s transition period is thus a blend of authoritarianism, demagogy, and pseudo-political process that keeps the bureaucracy in positions of economic and institutional power and reduces the opposition to the status of powerless

marginality” (Tismaneanu, 1993, p.312). This is a problem that is currently still relevant, with citizens expressing frustration with the Romanian political system. Thus, it can be inferred that Romania is still running through a period of transition. An additional problem that Romanians faced in the transition towards democracy is lack of civil society and nostalgia for collectivist forms of social structure. What Tismaneanu (1993) recommends is “to replace a culture of fear, intimidation, and distrust with one of dialogue, procedures, and trust” (ibid., p.348). Fear is a recurring emotion when mentioning former communist bloc populations, and Romanians, as it can later be seen in the analysis section, are no strangers to this emotion.

Consequently, it is no surprise that modern-day Romania suffered in its transition from a communist state to a democratic one with collateral damage on its population. Liliana Popescu-Birlan (1994) takes a step further than Tismaneanu (1993) and covers the rise of corruption with increased privatization. She explains that as privatization takes it course, it may also come with discrepancies in wealth. Granted, the slow pace of Romania’s privatization has allowed for the wealth gap to increase. She argues that corruption is becoming nationally institutionalized, which is seen to result in an increasing collective nostalgia for Ceausescu’s regime. As a result,

(12)

project shows in later sections, corruption and dissatisfaction with the economy (Andren and Martinsson, 2006) become a push factor for many Romanians who decide to emigrate. In this sense, the revolution has failed in providing citizens with a fundamental change in the political system.

2.3 National identity

Anna Triandafyllidou (1998) seeks to explain national identity as a way of distinguishing and differentiating a nation from other nations and ethnic groups. She places great emphasis on “‘significant others’” (Triandafyllidou, 1998, p.594). The “‘significant others’” (ibid.) acts as a notion of investigating ways in which others (outgroups) may condition the formation and transformation of the identity of the ingroup. She argues, “not only does the organization of the world in nation-states seem ‘natural’ but the whole perception by each individual of the

surrounding world is based on the distinction between the ingroup, namely the nation, and the foreigners, those belonging to other communities, the ‘others’” (ibid., p.593). This is the most pertinent form of collective identity, and that in order for nations to exist, other

communities/nations must also exist and exert their influence on ingroups. Triandafyllidou (1998) refers to the nation as part of a “dual relationship rather than as an autonomous, self-contained unit” (ibid., p.594). As an example, she offers a case-study of Greek-Macedonian relations. The issue of claiming Alexander the Great as a symbol of nationalism, developed a Greek-driven antagonism towards Slavo-Macedonians, who continuously claim Alexander the Great as part of their cultural heritage. Thus, the Greek government developed a perception of the Macedonian ‘other’ as a threat to Greek “political independence” (ibid., p. 607).

Anthony D. Smith (1993), writes on several historical sociological issues, including on those of nations and ethnicities. He inquires on the topic of which exact communities form nations. Smith says: “We see that the key to an answer lies in their pre-modern ethnic base. That is, those groups are likely to form nations which have had, at their core, a substantial ethnic community with its own memories, symbols, myths and traditions, and whose populations share common sentiments and aspirations” (Smith, 1993, p.130). His argument serves as a basic building block to Triandafyllidou’s (1998) explanation on why outgroups are important to nation-building of ingroups. Furthermore, it is equally important to define what ethnicity means for the purpose of this research. For Smith (1993), an ethnicity is defined by common ancestry,

(13)

shared culture and history, association to a specific territory of origin, and a certain degree of solidarity (ibid., p.130). However, he places emphasis on how imperative it is to recognize the nation as a “subvariety and development of the ethnie” (ibid., p.130). The nation is then defined as a sub-category of the ethnic population living in a specific territory. In essence, the nation entails territory, legal rights, and education, which forms an institutionalized community of people based on a common ethnicity of the population.

Apart from Smith (1993) and Triandafyllidou (1998), Walker Connor (1978) writes on the concept of nationality and how it cannot be operationalized in terms of religion, language, or geography. Unlike Smith (1993) and Triandafyllidou (1998), Connor’s (1978) definition of nationality is focused more heavily on ethnicity. Nonetheless, it is quite fundamental in

understanding ethnic as well as territorial nationalism. For Connor (1978), the sense of belonging is a psychological bond that is embedded in the belief of common decent. He stresses that co-nationals do not have to be objectively related through actual descent, but rather, the belief that they are connected through common ancestry is what stems as critical (Connor, 1993, p.376-377). Thus, Connor (1993, 1978), offers the psychological perspective of national and ethnic bonds, which can help the reader and researcher better understand how cohesion of nations occur.

Another scholar, Stacy Takacs (1999), puts forth the idea of ‘naturalness’ based on Anderson’s (1992) piece on nationalism. She expands on the idea of a nation simply being “‘there’” (Takacs, 1999, p.593) limited by geographical borders, while its people are bound by language, culture, and blood. She further explains how Anderson’s (1992) work implies that “the family provides a specific representation of the way in which individuals imagine their

relationship to the nation. As such, “it should not be dismissed as an incidental, anachronistic or sentimental reference” (Takacs, 1999, p.594). The importance of family in defining national identity is not explained by Triandafyllidou (1998), Smith (1993), or Connor (1978). Since this study explores the family experience in the formation of national identity, it is important to refer back to Takacs (1999) and Anderson (1992) as family is the fundamental nucleus from which individuals derive their basic development of not only individual identity but also national identity. Takacs (1999) explains how the nation is considered to be a given, as people do not have the freedom to choose where they are born. As she further argues, “the foundational documents of American nationalism make it clear that the privileged metaphor for the collective

(14)

enterprise of nationality has always been the patriarchal family” (Takacs, 1999, pg.594). Thus, ideas about individuals’ national identity which exist within families get passed on to future generations, leading to the maintenance of history, language, and culture. However, Takacs (1999), just like Triandafyllidou (1998), maintains that differentiation is a feature of all nations based on the idea that there must always be an outside and an inside group in order for these groups to exist and differentiate from each other (Bennington, 1990, p.132). This concept is crucial in the analysis of Romanian respondents’ perception of how outgroups view Romanians, and it will be later covered in the data analysis.

2.3.1 Romanian national identity

Nicolescu et al. (2007) from the Academy of Economic Studies in Bucharest put together a journal article encompassing a study on Romanian national identity. They put forth the idea that national identity in Romania is influenced by recent historical events, such as communism. Nicolescu et al. (2007) explain how communism quietly removed village traditions as well as cultural elites who exerted influence during the interwar period. In a strange way, Romanians have been left with a void after Ceausescu’s regime fell in 1989. Nicolescu et al. (2007) write: “they [Romanians] characterize themselves negatively as not caring about the others, having a certain tendency towards aggressiveness and authoritativeness, acting on the edge of honest and dishonest behavior, being pretty disorganized, idealists, superficial and conservators” (Nicolescu et al., 2007, p. 80). In addition to the negative characteristics that Romanians claim they have, Nicolescu et al. conduct an entire study on how Romanians perceive themselves and their

national identity in the context of a growing European identity and national interests. They touch on the frustrating socio-political climate, which is spear-headed by continued transition and reform. This continuous reformation has caused confusion and disappointment to the Romanian population (ibid.). Due to this consistent feeling of confusion, Romanians have faced many challenges in grasping who they are as a modern twenty-first century nation, battling with which ideals they respect and wish to incorporate into the modern Romanian nation.

Our understanding of a nation cannot be limited to solely cultural or political terms. Alvin Toffler (1980), linked the nation to economic elements as well. For him, the main debate on identity alludes to the topic of globalization and increase in interdependence, trade, and communication. Romanians’ general problem does lie in the economic aspect of their lives. “Romanians’ main discontent is their material situation – 71% of them being unsatisfied or very

(15)

unsatisfied with the money they earn” (Nicolescu et. al, 2007, p.80). This pessimistic attitude and dissatisfaction with life in Romania, has pushed more people to leave their home country in pursuit of a better life. The fear of many is the loss of old traditions and a growing

disillusionment in new generations. The question of Romanian national identity is still dependent on how Romania has progressed following the outing of Nicolae Ceausescu. The problem seems to remain that even eighteen years later, Romanians have not reached a satisfactory level of confidence in their future, standard of living, or national identity.

2.3.2 American national identity

This research focuses on the national identity of Romanians living in the United States and Canada. Thus, it is crucial to explore American national identity in order to discover any spillovers into a Romanian’s Romanian identity. Stanley Renshon (2005), examines the idea of what being an American truly means. For Renshon (2005), American national identity is a controversial term due to its regularly mistaken association with nationalism. He accentuates that national identity does not have a common understanding. Nonetheless, he dives into what makes Americans so patriotic and proud: “Americans are justly proud of their democracy, and they highly rank their country’s influence in the world, its economy, and its history and scientific developments” (Renshon, 2005, p.68). He further claims Americans have an unrealistic sense of what the United States lacks, and as a result, has turned Americans and immigrants living in America into an unappreciative lot of individuals due to having been spoiled with so much materialism compared to other countries. In brief, Americans are much more likely to

communicate their demands and expectations, resorting to taking things for granted (ibid., 2005, p.69). This ascertains a standardized model of ungratefulness, which can perhaps be seen in acclimated immigrants in the US, benefiting from the spoils and riches that the United States has offered them.

Samuel Huntington and Steven Dunn (2004) write about the origins of American identity and what defines modern Americans. The two claims they explore are: (1) the United States is in fact a nation of immigrants; (2) American identity is defined by a guiding set of political

principles, commonly referred to as “the American Creed” (Huntington and Dunn, 2004, p.37). They place emphasis on the founding principles of the United States through a 17th and 18th

century British settlers with a future disintegration of the Anglo-Protestant culture, which became replaced with the American Creed after the 1970s. Nonetheless, Huntington and Dunn

(16)

(2004) maintain that American core culture is still very much defined by the 17th and 18th century

settlers that escaped religious persecution in the modern-day United Kingdom. The main aspects of said culture include but are not limited to: Christianity, a strong work ethic, British traditions of justice and law, Protestant moralism and values (Huntington and Dunn, 2004, p.40).

Immigration, according to Huntington and Dunn (2004), only began to play a larger role in American identity after the 1800s. Despite the large influx of different immigrants from all over the world, they maintain that the United States is still primarily dependent on the identity

developed during the 1700s. However, what sets American national identity apart, is its fealty to the civic component of what Americans stand for. What differentiates America from other nations that are based on ethnicity, is the idea of the American Creed, which defines Americans as to having a civic national identity. As a consequence, “America is said to be more liberal, more principled, more civilized than those tribally defined societies” (ibid., p.47). While other countries are defined along ethnic lines, such as Romania, the United States is based more on the political principles that were adopted in the 18th century. This means that American national

identity, in contrast to that of Romanians, is based on civic rather than ethnic aspects.

2.3.3 Canadian national identity

While the United States and Canada share a history of large immigration and New World settlement, they differ in many aspects, making them both unique countries with different

political systems. Yinger et al. (1995) draw a comparison between Canada and the United States when it comes to cultural retention of immigrants: “Whereas in the United States, cultural

maintenance is associated with individualism (self-fulfilment, freedom of expression), in Canada is appears to be linked to a choice concerning the type of society the country is to become. Indeed, cultural retention has been a much more prominent issue in Canada than the United States” (Wayland, 1997, p.53). Lipset (1990) theorizes that cultural retention may be a greater issue in Canada because racial and ethnic tension may be newer to Canada compared to the United States, which has dealt with a prolonged history of dealing with these tensions.

Canada is an interesting case-study when it comes to national identity mainly because of its issues with regionalism, language, weak federal government, and large presence of

immigrants. Canadians’ identity has been slow in emerging due to its strong ties to Britain. Canada has been extensively shaped by the British in terms of political ideology, and

(17)

have its own flag until 1964” (Wayland, 1997, p.34). This is a contrast to the United States, where the tie to Britain was severed in the 1770s (Huntington and Dunn, 2004). In this sense, Canada has a more recently developed sense of national independence. Creighton (1970), also adds to the issue of identity formation by mentioning the French-English debate that has, and presently is, a contested matter in Canadian nationality. The French held to their language, educational system, and civil code in their particular dominion widely known as Quebec (Creighton, 1970). In 1971, Canada adopted a multiculturalism policy in a response to ethnic minorities and their dissatisfaction vis-à-vis the Royal Commission. This policy comprised of six programs, offering grants towards cultural development (Wayland, 1997, p.47). Multiculturalism has originated as a policy, but now it is an integral part of Canadian society – it has become not only a reality, but also a social movement (Fleras and Elliott, 1990).

Eric Kaufmann and Oliver Zimmer (1998) contribute to the literature on Canadian

national identity by offering a refreshing perspective on development of national identity through the surrounding environment. The First World War and the carnage that brought with it, put forth a new development of identity embedded in nature. They write: “in the wake of this

disillusionment, there emerged a new Canadian cultural nationalism rooted in the soil of home and richly embedded in northern nature” (Kaufmann and Zimmer, 1998, p.494). As Vipond (1980) also adds to Kaufmann and Zimmer’s argument on Canadian national identity becoming aligned with surrounding nature, the intellectual groups formed around the idea of placing the development of national identity as a first priority in Canada. As a result, this concept blossomed among the university educated youth. While Wayland (1997) offers a more historical and policy-oriented view on the development of Canadian national identity, Kaufmann and Zimmer (1998) as well as Vipond (1980) discuss the rise of Canadian civil society and the move towards romanticizing Canadian nature while placing it in context with Canadian national identity.

2.4 What is a diaspora?

This section aims to identify how a diaspora is defined in the context to this comparative study between Romanians in Canada and the United States. The term diaspora has been long used to describe an exodus from the homeland, particularly referring to the Jewish Diaspora and the departure of Jewish people from their homeland encompassing modern-day Israel (Popescu, 2005). “Slavery, pogroms, indenture, genocide and other unnameable terrors have all figured in

(18)

the constitution of diasporas and the reproduction of diaspora-consciousness, in which territory is focused less on common territory and more on memory, or, more accurately, on the social

dynamics of remembrance and commemoration” (Gilroy, 1994, p. 207). Gilroy provides an account of how diasporas came into existence deriving from a more negative connotation. However, in the modern world, diaspora has come to bear a much less negative connotation. As an example, “from the point of view of the homeland, emigrant groups have been conceptualized as diasporas, even when they have been largely assimilated” (Brubaker, 2005, p.3). Brubaker places a set of three criteria which define a diaspora, all of which are debated and still

academically contested. The first criteria of a diaspora entails “dispersion” (ibid., p.5). He maintains that this is the most globally accepted and most straightforward criterion: “it can be interpreted strictly as forced or otherwise traumatic dispersion; more broadly as any kind of dispersion in space, provided that the dispersion crosses state borders” (ibid.). This means that in order to be considered as part of a diaspora, an individual would have to live outside his/her nation-state of origin. The second criterion is an orientation towards a “‘homeland’ as an

authoritative source of value, identity and loyalty” (ibid.). Safran (1991), builds on this idea and highlights the ancestral home as the place where one would or should return. Other scholars such as Clifford (1994) reject the importance of an eventual return to the homeland, since many examples of South Asian, African, and Caribbean populations do not necessarily encompass a fervor of returning to their place of origin. The third criterion mentioned by Brubaker (2005), is “boundary-maintenance” (Brubaker, 2005, p.6). Maintaining boundaries means preserving one’s distinctive identity while living in a host society/state: “it is this that enables one to speak of a diaspora as a distinctive ‘community’, held together by a distinctive, active solidarity, as well as by relatively dense social relationships, that cut across state boundaries and link members of the diaspora in different states into a single ‘transnational community’” (ibid.). The interesting angle of this criterion is exploring to what extent immigrants maintain their boundaries and to what extent they assimilate into their host society. This will become an important part in the analysis that will be derived from my respondents’ experiences of living abroad.

Michel Bruneau (2010) offers a more simplified approach to understanding diasporas. He acknowledges that there are many diasporas in the world, distributed unequally. For Bruneau (2010), “family bonds, in fact, constitute the very fabric of the diaspora, particularly in the case of diasporas stemming from Asia and the eastern Mediterranean, with their well-known extended

(19)

family nature” (Bruneau, 2010, p.39). He further argues that within each diaspora there is a sense of cultural maintenance that involved music, literature, folklore, etc. He identifies four main types of diaspora structures: religious, political, racial and cultural, and entrepreneurial. These act as the four basic bonding principles that keep diasporas connected abroad. Furthermore, he explains that “through migration, diaspora members have lost their material relationship to the territory of origin, but they can still preserve their cultural or spiritual relationship through memory” (ibid., p.48). This point can be equally applied to the Romanian diaspora since some individuals choose to remember their roots, while simultaneously losing their ties to the territory of origin itself.

Floya Anthias (1998), argues “the concept of diaspora, whilst focusing on transnational processes and commonalities, does so by deploying a notion of ethnicity which privileges the point of ‘origin’ in constructing identity and solidarity” (Anthias, 1998, p.558). She believes that it fails to explain trans-ethnic relations as well as class and gender. As she explains, “the issue of gender is particularly important, given the increasing recognition of the ways in which gender, ethnicity and class intersect in social relations” (ibid.). While these issues are very important in analyzing social relations between an emigrant group and the host group, I believe her point raises the question of how we can better define a diaspora and thus proves that the concept itself is innately complex. Another interesting critique she makes: “the lack of attention given to transethnic solidarities, such as those against racism, of class, of gender, of social movements, is deeply worrying from the perspective of the development of multiculturality, and more inclusive notions of belonging” (ibid., p.577). This, again, highlights the complex nature of diasporas. Other authors mentioned above Anthias (1998) simplify its meaning and try to operationalize the concept in more simplistic terms. It is very much focused on the emigrant groups and their necessary ties to the homeland, yet Anthias (1998) is suggesting how diasporas should also be analyzed through social relations within a host country. Brah (1996) also agrees, by explaining how class and gender play into the process of settlement and migration. These issues may also explain the extent to which emigrants maintain boundaries in their host countries, as mentioned by Brubaker (2005). Factors such as class, should be taken into consideration when studying diasporas, since they play directly into the process of integration in a host country.

(20)

2.4.1 The Romanian diaspora and identity

The year 1989 was a promising time for Romania and its potential to transition into a Western-style democracy following the fall of the communist Ceausescu regime. The euphoria was short lived, as former members of the communist nomenclature took control and placed Romania on a slow path towards development (Tismaneanu, 1992). By the year 2000, living standards were worse compared to what they had been ten years prior. Promises instilled by politicians to put Romania on the right track, were overshadowed by continued corruption and stagnation (ibid.). Due to these unsatisfactory circumstances, Romanians turned to emigration, which many scholars such as Sayad (2004), consider to be one of the most radical political acts. Thus, “disillusionment and the lack of faith in politicians’ ability to deliver compelled many Romanians to take things into their own hands and emigration became an act of protest” (Trandafoiu, 2013, p.25). As Trandafoiu (2013) explains in her book on diaspora identity politics, Romanians refuse to compromise with the political climate in their home country.

The next step in a post-communist milieu, was for Romanians to slowly turn towards the West, the beacon of all opportunities and success. Furthermore, “throughout much of the last two centuries, Romanians have strived to fit into and belong to what was their own image of the West. Even during the communist period, state propaganda emphasized Romania’s contribution to the European culture” (ibid., p.29). This refers also to Gilroy (1993) and his theory on nations having a dilemma of being both inside and outside of the West. As Adrian Marino (1995) writes, Romanian culture is defined by Occidental and Oriental aspects, both resulting in complexes of inferiority and superiority. Nonetheless, the problem of Romanian identity in the diaspora becomes a matter of choice. As Trandafoiu (2013) mentions, “migrant views, frankly and forcefully expressed online [referring to the research on online diaspora forums], show that outside the nationalizing space of the nation-state, identity becomes a matter of choice, not a given or a must” (Trandafoiu, 2013, p.38). As Georgiou (2006) also claims, it is a move away from “inescapable dependence” towards “selective association” (ibid., 2006, p.148). As a result, migrants have the power to choose who and what they want to be, and the choice to whether or not they want to be associated to Romania, remains entirely in their hands. During Trandafoiu’s (2013) extensive research on Romanian migrants’ attitudes towards their identity, she finds quite a few respondents who consider nationalism and complacency to be a foolish enterprise

(21)

Romania into consideration: “A continuous reexamination of how their Romanianness is negotiated between outright rejection and nostalgic attachment is carried out by diasporans themselves” (ibid., p.39). This goes to prove that people living in the diaspora feed off each other certain attachments or criticisms. Of course, criticism of Romania is not the only commonality. Some Romanians express their longing for their homeland and danger of identity loss. Her study shows the complexities in defining the national identity for Romanians who have chosen to leave their home country in hopes of a better material standing.

Gloria Macri (2011) encapsulates the relationships Romanians have with their home country. In her study on the Romanian diaspora living in Ireland, she utilizes a constructive approach in defining the identity of Romanians, and places emphasis on social interactions and experiences of everyday life. The importance of social interactions is additionally explored by Trandafoiu (2013). Barth (1969) argues that addressing the hardships of defining identity begins with analyzing on the boundaries implemented by the ethnic group, which refers back to

Brubaker’s (2005) three criteria of a diaspora. In addition, Macri’s (2011) study reinforces Triandafyllidou’s (1998) theory on national identity and how otherness helps an in-group characterize itself and distinguish from others. As Macri (2011) writes: “For example, findings emerging from this research point to the fact that Romanianness is defined in relation to a

multitude of ‘Other’ diasporic groups…Important distinctions have also been made in relation to being a Romanian in Ireland vs. a Romanian migrant elsewhere, between living in Romania and living abroad” (Macri, 2011, p. 127-128). This takes ‘othering’ to a level within the ingroup (ibid.). In addition, Georgiou (2006) also asserts that a ‘home’ is essential since it is “a synonym to familiarity, intimacy, security and identity against the unknown, the distant and the large” (Georgiou, 2006, p.85). All theories serve to best help readers and researchers understand the sociological explanatory factors that go into individuals’ identification processes. Macri’s (2011) study took place over the course of six years, in which Romanian online forums in Ireland were observed. Feelings towards the homeland were tracked down to be quite negative. For example: “Corruption does not only affect entrepreneurs but just about everybody in the society. Many forum members seem to view that corruption is ‘the New Religion’ in the Romanian society” (Macri, 2011 p.131). She further elaborates on the forum responses and how Romanians found it stressful and nerve-wracking to live in a country where corruption and bureaucracy stand at the forefront of issues of survival.

(22)

The findings in Macri’s (2011) study in Ireland point fingers to what is expected of this research project. The generalizations found in Ireland contain some paradoxical characteristics that Romanians paint of their country and fellow countrymen. Some positive findings point to the fact that Romanians believe that they are adaptable to myriads of situations, which

sometimes become difficult to detach from negative self-determination. She observes,

“Romanians: selfishness and individualism. Thus, instead of bonding with other co-citizens and contribute to the collective community construction (either online or offline), forum members feel that Romanians generally lack the civic spirit and the social unity that a community needs” (Macri, 2011, p.133). This refers to the generalization of Romanians being a divided people. Due to disillusionment caused in their home country, many Romanians prefer to stir clear of other co-countrymen while living abroad. Despite these negative and pessimistic embedded attitudes, Romanians do in fact, also show pride about their place of origin. Aspects such as history, beautiful landscapes, and IT/mathematical human talents, are some of the sources for bearing love for the country. In addition, “some Romanians in Ireland also feel that their cultural traditions make them proud and at the same time it also makes them feel distinct from ‘the Others’” (ibid., p.137). Again, Triandafyllidou’s (1998) claim on the importance of “‘others’” (Macri, 2011, p.137) is seen in works such as Macri’s (2011). Despite some of these positive aspects diasporic Romanians value, it is not enough to outweigh the negatives and instill a sense of pride in their Romanian identity.

2.5 Immigration in North America

This thesis aims to compare the experience of Romanians in the United States and Canada, thus, it is imperative to touch upon the immigration processes of both countries. Canada and the US, unlike the European Union, has a selective process of choosing who immigrates into the country. In other words, they are more selective and aim to acquire some of the best brains from abroad (Favell, 2008). This ensures that migrants coming into North America are legal and better qualified for high skilled work compared to compatriots who move elsewhere in Europe. “In 2001 the North American corridor peaked, with 25 per cent of all Romanian emigrants leaving for Canada and 19 per cent for the United States” (Trandafoiu, 2013).

(23)

2.5.1 The United States and the Romanian diaspora

Gabriel Popescu (2005), and his piece on NATO expansion with inclusion of Romania, demonstrates how diaspora politics is favored in the United States. He says, “the United States represents a unique case in the analysis of diaspora geopolitics because the US electoral system represents a favorable environment for the empowered diasporas” (Popescu, 2005, p.459). As an example, the US was oftentimes pulled into conflicts in which it bore no national interests. Such was the case with the Israeli-Arab conflict, since the Jewish diaspora heavily lobbied US

Congress to aid and support Israel in its endeavors. Such was the case of Romanians in the diaspora supporting NATO presence in Romania. Romanian migration to America came as early as the American Civil War years. Further, a second influx of Romanian migrants came to the United States in the 1950’s, in response to the installation of the communist regime. In contrast to the previous wave of Romanian immigrants, these individuals were educated and came from metropolitan areas. Correspondingly, these immigrants were not dependent on ethnic

organizations, and as a result, chose to better assimilate into American society (ibid., p.462). This wave of immigrants is imperative in explaining the migration after communism fell in 1989.

Following the year 1989, the West was welcoming the potential of integrating former Iron Curtain countries into its European community. Despite the ousting of Nicolae Ceausescu, Romania remained as an “‘other’” (Popescu, 2005, p.457) due to the communist party’s

repressive policies in the 1980s, and failures to properly transition in the 1990s (ibid., p.460). The United States did not have a better perception of Romania. As an example, “in 1992, the US Congress refused to re-grant Romania Most Favored Nation (MFN) status in trade relations. As this trade status is granted partly on the basis of respect for human rights, this situation equated Romania’s status in terms of human rights issues to countries such as China” (ibid., 464). Despite the difficulties in finding a place in the international community, the Romanian-American diaspora became a critical key in helping Romania secure NATO membership. Romanian-Americans saw this as an opportunity to restore Romania into its historically rich legacy in the western world (Popescu, 2005, p.465). To further demonstrate Romanians’ presence in the United States, Dan Voinea (2014) writes on the demographics of Romanian presence in the Golden State of California. His study shows a significant number of Romanians being highly educated and employed in jobs requiring higher skill levels. He maintains: “The high level of education, normal employment status and good distribution in the occupational

(24)

field and industries lead to a very good economic outcomes for immigrants of Romanian origin that are established in California” (Voinea, 2014, p.69). This points to Romanians achieving success in the acquisition of high-skill labor employment in North America, contrasting to Romanians who seeks employment in Europe.

2.5.2 U.S. immigration policies

The most recent and important amendment to American immigration policy is the 1990 Immigration Act which became effective in 1992. The major policy shift, however, came in 1965 which prompted an increase in diversification. Before 1965, a bulk of visas were granted to European countries, predominantly the United Kingdom and Germany. Clark et al. (2007) write that “it established a maximum quota of 20,000 for each Eastern Hemisphere country, subject to an overall ceiling of 170,000. Within the quota, visas were allocated according to a seven-category preference system, which gave 64% of visas to relatives of U.S. citizens or residents, 6% to refugees, and 30% to employment-based categories” (Clark et. al, 2007, p.359). Later modification to the Act allowed for the naturalization of illegal immigrants who settled before 1982, as well as an increase in employment-based visas by 1990. Another unique element of the US immigration policy is its Diversity Visa Programme (DV), also known as the ‘Green Card Lottery’ (Ikubolajeh Logan, 2012). As such, “the DV is designed to improve the multicultural composition of the ‘melting pot’ beyond the traditional migrant countries of origin in Europe” (Ikubolajeh Logan, 2012, p.2). Some of the requirements to qualify for the DV include a high school diploma or work experience in an occupation which requires a minimum of two years’ training (USCIS). These immigration policies in place by the United States, has given

Romanians opportunities to move the North America. Romania is a participant of the DV program, and Romanians have found the lottery as one of the legitimate paths to gaining permanent residency in the United States.

2.5.3 Canada and its Romanian immigrants

Canada has a similar history with Romanian migrants as the United States. The first wave of Romanian migration into Canada came at the beginning of the 1900s, due to economic

dissatisfaction in Romania. The second wave came with the installation of the communist

government, and “these immigrants, most of them intellectuals, were seekers of political asylum, fleeing the political oppression at home. Most of them are involved in interethnic and

(25)

transcultural relationships and, at the same time preserve close ties with some Romanian ethnic group, whether a congregation or cultural association based on common language and/or values, being thus ‘doubly integrated’” (Bottez, 2014, p.7). This is similar to Popescu’s (2005) piece on NATO expansion in Romania, which touches upon Romanian organizations and their cohesion in the United States. Unlike the Romanians in the United States, Monica Bottez (2014) gives a hint at Romanians’ more closely-knit nature in Canada. This changed, however, with the third migration wave after 1989: “quite often they [Romanians] avoid Romanian company in order to speed up their integration and server connections with their country of origin describing their attitude as ‘cutting the umbilical cord’” (ibid.). This is imperative later in the analysis of interviewees’ data. The post-communist period seems to be a turning point in Romanians’ attitudes about their emigration choices.

Canada has a reputation of pre-integrating their immigrants. According to Culic (2010), Canada’s skilled migrants are put into a pre-migratory program, “when during the forty-eight month application process, premigrants familiarize themselves with the languages and cultures of Canada, establish personal and professional links and start inhabiting a new mental space, as if the Romanian realities became an extraterritorial extension of the Canadian state” (Trandafoiu, 2013, p.152). With such policies, both Canada and the US are known for taking workers with professional education, resulting in a homogenized group of Romanians in North America, compared to those present in Europe. As an example, Nedelcu (2012) studied IT specialists and emigration from Romania to Toronto, Canada. These specialists developed networks for

incoming migrants, with contributory resources for those who needed assistance while in Canada.

2.5.4 Canadian immigration policies

The main question is: what sets Canada apart from the United States? To start, Canada has a significantly lower population that the United States, as it does not share a border with a second country and much of the land is uninhabitable nature (Rekai, 2002). Canadian policy is focused on acquiring young, and highly skilled immigrants: “Skilled-worker immigrants are selected under a point system that favours individuals with training and experience in skilled occupations, facility in both official languages, youth, and postsecondary education” (Rekai, 2002, p.3). This is similar to the United States’ DV program which also aims for incoming migrants to have a higher education or experience/training in a certain profession. According to

(26)

data, about sixty per cent of migrants arriving into Canada are economic immigrants (ibid.). However, although Canada has historically sponsored family reunifications and visa

administrations for extended family, the Canadian government has removed the right of

Canadian citizens to sponsor extended family and children for immigration. Unlike Canada, the United States’ policy is family-friendly as sixty-four per cent of annual legal immigration is comprised of family-sponsored applications (ibid.). The Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP) in Canada also offers a wide range of opportunities for potential permanent residents. Reitz argues that “a new Canadian Experience Class introduced in 2008 provides opportunities for temporary foreign workers in skilled occupations and with sufficient Canadian work

experience, to apply for permanent residence from within the country” (Reitz, 2012, p.527). This shows the flexibility and eagerness of the Canadian government to welcome high-skill

immigrants and offering a simple and rapid path to permanent residency. Reitz (2012) also mentions the importance of the multicultural policy in place in Canada, as mentioned previously by Wayland (1997). He argues that “multiculturalism is regarded as a strategy for immigrant integration, rather than isolation…Support for multiculturalism as part of the national identity, and a point of difference from the US, is one of the important bases of popular support for immigration in Canada, alongside the belief in its economic value” (Reitz, 2012, p.528-529). Irene Bloemraad’s (2006) study also points to the conclusion that government funding towards ethnic communities has produced higher citizenship attainment rates in Canada compared to the United States, and thus it has become an attractive place for immigration.

(27)

3. Methodology

A comparative qualitative study approach is most applicable to my research since my goal was to focus on the Romanian Diaspora in two countries: Canada and the United States. Bukhari (2011) describes comparative studies as used “to help define the organization structure of the subjects as well as give the differential points between the subjects matter” (Bukhari, 2011, p.3). Thus, my goal with this thesis is to explore how similar and different Romanians are in Canada and the United States on the perspective of national identity. In order to better

understand the motives for leaving Romania and settling in North America, I decided to focus on families as my unit of analysis. At the same time, I wanted to know if people who relocated after the Revolution of 1989 were still affected by the events that unfolded when Ceausescu’s regime collapsed, and the new governmental regime took hold of the country. My focus is on

individuals’ national identity and how it has changed since the Revolution, and if it has changed at all.

My research is based purely on qualitative research methods. The objective of this paper is to give people a voice over their own narrative and to express how they, as individuals, feel about certain aspects of their identity and roots. The best aspect of doing qualitative research, is that “it provides information about the “human” side of an issue – that is, often contradictory behaviors, beliefs, opinions, emotions, and relationships of individuals” (Mack et al., 2005, p.1). Additionally, qualitative research allows the researcher to dig deeper into individuals’ personal experiences by way of asking open-ended questions. For example, I was able to ask ‘why’ and ‘how’ my participants felt a certain way about the issue discussed. Qualitative research methods allowed me to better connect with my participants and to see their views from their perspective, which is something that quantitative research methods would have not been able to offer (Corbin and Strauss, 2015, p.5). Conducting semi-structured interviews allowed me to establish a fruitful conversation with all participants, which eventually led to better observation of my data and the emotions that were portrayed when talking to each interviewee.

I exclusively used semi-structured interviews as my method of data-collection. I interviewed seventeen people, eight of which were in Canada, and nine which were located in the United States. I had wholesome conversations with each participant, and it felt like a casual conversation each time. Semi-structured interviews are still some of the most used forms of qualitative data collection, and it permits a tone of informality with a standard set of questions.

(28)

This interview method allows for an open response from the participant, which facilitates the process for participants “to explore issues they feel are important” (Longhurst, 2003, p.143). I set out on a journey of approximately six weeks, where I had to get in touch with Romanians who lived in the US and Canada. Interviews ranged from a duration of 40 to 120 minutes, since each participant differed in his/her story telling. My focus was to speak to people who had moved abroad after the Revolution in 1989, since my focus is on testimonies of people who moved after Ceausescu’s regime was absolved. Two of my participants moved before the Revolution, but they were very informative of their experiences, which in the end did not differ from those who left after 1989.

My sampling method was by way of convenience and snowballing. Since I concentrate on individuals and families, and also being a Romanian living outside of Romania, I was able to get in touch with most people I knew in both Canada and the US. The process of acquiring respondents was rather uncomplicated, since most of participants were either acquaintances or acquaintances of people in my personal network. Additionally, most of my interviewees were working from home and had time to participate in my study. I ran into some difficulties towards the end of April, because I had run out of people who I knew I could contact. At that point, I reached out to family friends from Romania who had two connections in the US and Canada. I also talked to a family in Canada, which was done through snowball sampling. After speaking to the wife, I was able to acquire two more family members to participate.

The primary way in which I interacted with my participants was through Facebook videocall, Whatsapp call/videocall, and Viber call. I conducted only four face-to-face interviews since I was in Los Angeles, California for the duration of my data collection phase. I faced some limitations, however. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, I was not able to conduct as many face-to-face interviews as I would have wished to. While most of the interviews were via videocall, three of them were through a regular call, which did not allow me to observe my participants’ body language and facial expressions. Nonetheless, I had to resort to analyzing their tone of voice and intonation. Further, I was also unable to travel to Canada or other parts of the United States, so there were already limitations already imposed by my research. Some internet complications also occurred, as sometimes the connection would break up, causing my audio recordings to have some unintelligible portions. It was also fairly difficult to avoid bias, since I knew some of my

(29)

interviewees beforehand. However, since I was familiar with some of their experiences, it helped the conversation flow naturally and comfortably.

The method of analysis that was be used to analyze the data collected from the interviews is thematic analysis. This form of analysis is made to identify, analyze, and report patterns that are found in the data. This means that I looked for themes to familiarize myself with the data collected, which allowed me to capture something imperative about the data in relation to my research question. This task was brought to light in the process of coding, which had to be extracted from the transcribed interviews, followed by the search of themes. Since this is not a very researched topic, Braun and Clarke (2006) claim thematic analysis is particularly useful when exploring under-researched areas. An upside of this form of analysis is that it provides flexibility when it comes to choosing a theoretical framework, and as a result, allowed me to provide detailed and complex descriptions of the data.

I made sure to offer informed consent, which required me to elaborate on the benefit of the research and process through which my participants were selected (Halperin and Heath, 2017). Other considerations included making sure that my interviewees are comfortable and free to stop whenever they wish. It was also strictly voluntary to participate – possible participants were free to refuse or accept. On practicality, what really assisted me was the ability to record our conversation, as it helped during the transcription process, so asking for permission was always the first thing following the introduction of myself and my project. Privacy of informants is critical, and harm to participants must be avoided at all times. Thus, their identities have been kept strictly confidential (Halperin and Heath, 2017). I resorted to giving each participant a pseudonym in order to facilitate my process of analysis while also adhering to the ethical code of political research.

In order to give the reader a better introduction to my participants, I have included a table on the next page with my respondents’ pseudonyms, age, description, and date of interview.

(30)

3.1 Overview of interviewees

Canadian Group

Name Age Description Date of interview

Nicoleta Muresan 35 Female. Resides in Montreal, Canada with her husband and three children. Left Romania in 2010, and now works as customer care specialist for company producing ergonomic chairs.

April 5, 2020

Radu Muresan 43 Male. Lives in Montreal, Canada. Married to Nicoleta Muresan and has three children. Played professional basketball for 20 years, and now working in IT.

April 9, 2020

Raluca Pascu Female. Lives in Montreal with her husband, Raul. Moved to Canada in 2004 with Raul and their two children. Works as a medical assistant since 2006.

April 14, 2020

Raul Pascu 52 Male. Lives in Montreal, Canada with his wife Raluca Pascu. Has two children, one of them being Emil Pascu. Works for an aeronautics company, and used to work in construction

April 14, 2020

Emil Pascu 28 Male. Resides in Montreal, Canada. Son of Raluca and Raul Pascu. Moved to Canada at age 12, and currently works as an

entrepreneur in construction for the past 5 years.

April 15, 2020

Darius Copil ~40’s Male. Lives in Toronto, Canada. Is married and has two small children. Moved to Canada in 2006, and works as massage therapist and entrepreneur. Used to teach at university and coached women’s basketball for 8 years in Romania. Co-founded a sports clinic and has locations in Canada and Australia.

April 22, 2020

Serban Calinescu ~50’s Male. Resides in Vancouver, Canada. Moved to Canada in 1997 with his wife and two sons. Works on international projects - building of attractions, such as water parks.

April 24, 2020

Lucretia Cretu ~50’s Female. Resides around the Toronto area in Canada. Moved to Canada with her husband and daughter in 2001. Works as system coordinator for a lubricant company.

The Revolution of 1989 and the question of national identity: a comparative study of the Romanian diaspora in the United States and Canada