In the conclusion to her book, Roman says that "it is [her] hope that this book has rendered visible a micropolitics of the quotidian, or a biopolitics of popular culture, that would remain obfuscated if examined through a framework that values less the situatedness of knowledges and epistemological praxes, and places more emphasis on general, abstract concepts such as identity politics and social movements." This is a worthy goal and the author does make some valuable observations about life in postcommunist Romania, observations that apply to the rest of Eastern Europe. One wishes that she had spent more time looking at everyday life in Romania, something that she, as an expatriate, is uniquely qualified to do. Unfortunately, the author devotes a great deal of time to summarizing and discussing various theoretical approaches to identity, gender, and other issues and gives little data. Examples offering glimpses of people and events are few.
The book begins with a description of contemporary Bucharest, one of the few places where we get a look, however brief, at real places and objects. A discussion of theory and methodology follows. After this introduction comes the heart of the book, namely a chapter each on aesthetics, youth culture, anti-Semitism, feminism, and gay culture. Throughout there are interesting, useful, and insightful observations. There is a good short description of Communist goals and approaches to culture and Roman correctly points out that Western popular culture was often perceived as high culture in the Communist world. She draws our attention to the role that the children of the Communist elite played in popularizing Western culture, for it was they who imported into Romania the audio and video cassettes obtained on trips to the West with their well-connected parents. Her chapter on youth is also one of the few with data: a photograph of an internet café in Bucharest, pictures of the covers of Romanian popular magazines, examples of song lyrics, both rock and rap, in the original and in English translation. The chapter on anti-Semitism tells us that the hatred against Jews is directed more at a myth than a real community and notes the various manifestations of anti-Semitism, accusations ranging from labeling Communism a Jewish conspiracy to seeing Jews as anti-nationalist profiteers capitalizing on the collapse of the Communist state. Roman observes that there is no feminist movement in Romania, although a crypto-matriarchy remains, and she correctly notes that the only women who might be considered feminist in the Western sense are those attached to NGOs (non-government organizations), which are usually Western-sponsored. She informs us that there is no gay community and that "queer" is defined in a way quite different from our usage, with women assuming fem roles in lesbian relationships, for example, not being considered gay.
Roman tells us that she does not want things obfuscated. Unfortunately, her useful observations are mired in a language that is dense, full of jargon, and punctuated with distracting italics. I quoted her statement of purpose at the beginning of this review to give a sense of her style. Content is perhaps more important than style and here, too, there are problems. Roman does not present her theoretical framework and then place it beneath the surface of case studies, where a framework should go. Rather, discussions of the theory and terminology appear at every step. Since the author is using Western theory and since, as she herself points out, many Western concepts do not apply to Romania, we learn much more about what is not than about what is. The observations on post-communist Romania which are presented, such as the ones noted above, are stated in general terms. There are few concrete examples: no case studies, no analysis of specific groups or events. This is especially frustrating since Roman is from Romania and has returned there in the course of writing this book. Thus, she seems uniquely qualified to give us a sense what post-communist Romania is like.
Taking the chapter on women's issue as an example, it would have been useful to interview women and to examine specific woman's groups. The author tells us that there are NGOs, often supported by Western organizations. Why not study a specific NGO, interview its members and tell us about them? Have they been influenced by the feminist views of their Western supporters? If their own views were originally "peasantist" and "patriarchal," to use the author's terms, how have they accommodated these views to their work in the NGO? How have they negotiated their fragmented identities? And what about indigenous groups not based on a Western model or supported by organizations outside Romania? Are there any and how do they work? In neighboring Ukraine, the Women's League has been in existence for a long time and has become an international organization. Still, it would not be considered feminist in the Western sense. The American version of its magazine, for example, publishes the "embroidery pattern of the month" and a recipe page. Yet this group is effective, changing with the fall of Communism to respond to changes in women's needs. Is there something similar in Romania? If so, it would make an excellent case study for women's identity formation in the post-communist period.
Finding an identity in Romania, as elsewhere in post-communist East Europe, is difficult. Communist constructs no longer apply, but what preceded Communism is dimly remembered at best. With over half a century of disinformation, knowledge of Western models is poor and, even if these were better understood, they might well not apply. Thus, studying the fragmented identities of this part of the world is an arduous task. Perhaps is necessary to first speak in generalities and to say what is not, as Roman has done. Hopefully she will give us a picture of Romania as it is in her future studies.
Bibliography, index. 179 pp.
In her review to my book Fragmented Identities, Professor Kononenko states her discontent and uneasiness in understanding the paradigmatic, methodological, and stylistic structure of my book, although she conveys a feeling of sympathy for my authorial voice--“an expatriate” who is now looking back (to Romania in general and Bucharest in particular). In her quick enumeration of my chapters’ topics, Professor Kononenko makes no incursion into the theoretical and methodological chapter. Understanding that realities and experiences can be approached from a variety of dynamic methodological schools of thought, this theoretical chapter ultimately determines “what,” “why,” and “how” is being said throughout my book. Unfortunately, without considering this theory-dedicated chapter, Professor Kononenko thinks that my book is an anthropological/folkloric endeavor and therefore she is looking for generic methodologies related to these social sciences. In fact, as expressed in my chapter on theory, my book valorizes the standpoint of critical cultural studies and feminist theory. I am thus using a critical apparatus non-exhaustively made of post-structuralism, post-colonial theory, and feminist theory. My methodology is influenced by “discourse analysis,” rather than classical socio-anthropological “group research,” as suggested by Professor Kononenko in her discussion about “Ukrainian” (?) women. Moreover, from the standpoint of critical cultural studies, my endeavor is highly theoretical at each and every step. I am seeking to challenge assumptions held about certain fragments of everyday life and identities in Romania. As “an expatriate” in the Western academia and as expressed in my theoretical chapter, I found these assumptions to be deeply marred by ideological bias, lagging under the influence of Cold War paradigms and a deterministic, “civilizational” understanding of Eastern Europe.