Nationalism and Territory: Constructing Group Identity in Southeastern Europe by George W. s> White (review)

Abstract

566 SEER, 79, 3, 200 I White, George W. Nationalismand Territoy:Constructing GroupIdentityin Southeastern Europe. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD, 2000. xv + 309 pp. Notes. Figures.$69.oo; $29.95. THE issue of nation and nationalism has figured prominently in postcommunist transition studies. In countries as diverse as Yugoslavia and Moldova, nation-buildingoften occurredat the expense of state-building.The incongruence of the state and the nation has led many to question whether post-communist states will ever become true nation-states. Much of this literature has examined nation and identity formation using objective indicators such as language and religion. White's research examines the importance of location and territoryin the development of the nation. As a geographer, White argues that nations derive much of their identity from particularlocations and territories.He also arguesthat location and territory are often not addressedbecause they are inherentlysubjectiveand difficultto measure. In order to analyse the concept of territory and location, White examines three indicators (site identification, landscape description and the tenacity factor) and applies these indicators to the development of the Hungarian, Romanian and Serbian nation. Not all territoriesor locations have the same relevanceto the development of nation, and thereforebased on history, literature and culture he identifies core, semi-core and peripheral territoriesfor each nation (often as he notes, these territoriesand locations overlap among nations).While White does an excellentjob of refocusingthe discussion, I am unsure that he has developed a method for analysing the subjectivecomponent of territoryand location. Moreover, the exact linkage between territorial identity and group decision-making is never fully developed. Rather than viewing territorial acquisition as part of an economic or military strategy, White argues that territory is desired because of its importance for national identity. Forexample, he statesthat the Serb nation struggledmore for the core territoryof Kosovo than the peripheralterritories of Croatia and Slovenia because of Serbian group identity. Most scholars would concede that territoryis a component of group and individualidentity formationand that territoryas a component of nationalismhas figuredin the foreignand the domesticpolicies of post-communiststates.However, it seems that White is arguingfor a type of territorialidentitydeterminismin which all policy-makingdecisionsthatinvolve the acquisitionor defenseof territoryare identity-basedratherthan strategic.If this were the case, I question whether Romania would have relinquishedBessarabiaand northern Bukovinato the Soviet Union in I940 or northern Transylvaniato the Hungarians (via the Germans) in the Second Vienna Award. These core territorieswere ceded based on strategiccalculationsmade by the Romanian political elite. Part of the problem with this analysis is the lack of linkage between territorialidentity and decision-making. For example, White argues that in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, northern Albania was a core Serbian territory, but since the I920S, the Serbs have lost interest in the region. This in part explains why there has not been an attempt to seize the territory.White never explains why this territorywhich was so core to Serb REVIEWS 567 identity has over the last eighty years become peripheral. Moreover, he describesthe territoryof Macedonia as part of the Serb semi-core identification , but then he failsto explain why the Serb leadershipallowed Macedonia to secede from Yugoslavia. Obviously, group and individual identity change over time. The issue is the mechanism for change. Why is it that a territory thatwas once core becomes peripheralor vice versa? These theoretical considerationsare importantas White explores his three country case studies. As he correctly observes, territory is a subjective component of identity, and therefore the classification of territory is a subjective process. Which territories, locations, events and individuals are part of any nation-building process is a difficult question to answer. While White does a good job of classifyingterritoriesand locations, there are some classifications that are more problematic than others. For example, he considers Transnistria to be a peripheral territory to Romanian nationbuilding .However asidefroma briefperiod duringWorldWarII, Transnistria has never been part of Romania properor part of the national identity.While the theoretical arguments could have been developed more, this book identifiesan important and often times neglected issue in the discussionover nation and nationalism. Department ofPolitical Science STEVEN D. ROPER EasternIllinois University Wolchik,Sharon L. and Zviglyanich,Volodymyr(eds). Ukraine. TheSearchfor a NationalIdentity.Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, MA and Oxford, I999, XXVi + 3I0 pp. Maps. Tables. Notes. Index...